|
Hello,
I'm about to start my first adventure path in PF2 (GMed some oneshots and I'm rather experienced in many other systems and do play in PFS sometimes), and stumbled upon the free archetype rule. Considering, that it'll be my first PF2 campaign, I lean towards to play as strictly as the rules to learn how they actually work, however...
I want to GM the remake of Kingmaker, and the idea to combine the kingdom's leadership roles with fitting archetypes makes me consider that stance, especially as this would enforce that the right PC is doing the job as they learn new abilities from it as the kingdom grows (using the kingdom level instead of the character level to see how many archetype feats they would get).
So before I decide, I want to learn your experience with the Free Archetype Rule, my more experienced PF2 players and GMs and how much it broke your games or made them better in your experiences.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the stuff said about it is a bit overblown.
I don't really know how many groups use it vs. not use it. PFS doesn't use it however and that alone makes for a big chunk of people who get by without it. It's clearly not necessary for the game to be playable and enjoyable, with the tens of thousands of people playing PFS as evidence. In home groups it seems to be not all that unusual though.
I've played two campaigns 1-20 so far without it and that worked fine too. I did use archetypes that I had to "pay for out of my own pocket" in those. There are plenty of archetypes that are good enough that you'll still consider taking them if you don't get them for free.
It's more of a horizontal versatility boost than a vertical power boost. But it definitely can also be a vertical power boost; you can end up with more HP, damage bonuses, better saving throws, more expert/master skills and so forth.
The most negative stories I've heard were from campaigns where almost everyone ended up playing a fighter (because you can't get the +2 to hit otherwise) with archetypes to get some class flavor from other classes.
I'm using FA in one of my campaigns (Strength of Thousands), but it's limited to wizard and druid archetype. Because the theme of the campaign is that everyone is in magic school, but it doesn't require everyone to play the same class. With free archetype everyone has enough reason to be in the school without limiting character building too much.
FA with significant campaign-thematic restrictions, instead of just total free choice, is a totally legit way of doing it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a new GM I'd recommend NOT giving this out, at least at first. You can always allow it later once you have a better feel for your players, characters, and your own sense of comfort with the rules.
If players are allowed free choice it WILL increase their power level. Not by a huge amount but they will be stronger
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just fundamentally a better way to play Pathfinder. It opens up choices dramatically, allows for a significant increase in build variety, greatly helps classes that are otherwise expected to draw on their own feat pools for power, all while being extremely manageable in terms of vertical power increase (i.e. almost nonexistent).
It can be a little bit much at first, but after playing around with it becomes pretty clear that Pathfinder just suffers as a game without it. There's basically no reason not to.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just fundamentally a better way to play Pathfinder. It opens up choices dramatically, allows for a significant increase in build variety, greatly helps classes that are otherwise expected to draw on their own feat pools for power, all while being extremely manageable in terms of vertical power increase (i.e. almost nonexistent).
It can be a little bit much at first, but after playing around with it becomes pretty clear that Pathfinder just suffers as a game without it. There's basically no reason not to.
I think that is some serious hyperbole and exaggeration. As a player I like it as much as the next guy, as a GM I'm wary of it (partly for power reasons, partly because it can lead to serious analysis paralysis with some players). If I give it out as a GM I usually give it out in a fairly constrained way.
But to say that Pathfinder suffers as a game without it is just sheer exaggeration. It does just fine without Free Archetype. Its almost as if the game itself and all the published adventures (bar one that I'm aware of) are intended to be played withOUT Free Archetype :-).
And to claim that the vertical power increase is "almost non existent" is sheer nonsense. It is very definitely quite noticeable if the players choose options for power. Note, I'm NOT saying that the power increase is necessarily a huge problem but it most certainly is a whole lot more than "almost non existent".
The Strength of Thousands Player's Guide recommends the free archetype but limited to druid multiclass and wizard multiclass. The PCs are students at the Magaambya Academy, which teaches arcane and primal magic. Those archetypes would gives PCs with non-arcane non-primal classes the ability to cast arcane or primal spells, to explain why they are at the Magaambya. I decided to open the options wider, and just said that their archetype had to do something with arcane or primal magic. The result was:
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
Cara, Idris, and Jinx have strongly roleplayed their archetypes. Kineticist Cara wanted to become a wizard in her youth, but faulty training led to her tapping into fire impulses rather than arcane spells. Now she is at the Magaambya to learn proper wizard spellcasting, but kinetic fire impulses are still her main tool. Bard Jinx is more about druid culture rather than druid spells, though as the party healer she likes the extra Heal spells from the archetype's spell slots. She used druidic Animal Order to gain an animal companion. Wizard Idris picked a non-multiclass archetype directly related to the Magaambya Academy. He acts like a typical academic student, spending long hours in the library studying the Magaambyan tradition of combining arcane and primal magic. Idris's player has him prepare spells related to his classwork and then creatively use them for combat.
Rogue Roshan is weird. Her player was the main advocate of the Strength of Thousands campaign, because she wanted a rogue character with two spellcasting archetypes. She needed a free archetype to manage that. Her Gelid Shard archetype gives her spontaneous arcane cold spells and her Sorcerer Multiclass archetype she devoted to primal fire spells. In combat, she mostly uses her Athletics skill for grappling and tripping, and then punches the off-guard opponent for sneak attack damage (her ranged-spell teammates are seldom in position for flanking). Her archetype spells are for less frequent occasions when she needs a ranged attack or an area of effect.
Stargazer, Wilfred, and Zandre barely remember that they have a free archetype.
My wife, player of Jinx, was the other strong advocate for Strength of Thousands. In my previous PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion adventure path, her character Sam was a Charisma-based scoundrel rogue with Sorcerer Multiclass archetype. This campaign did not have free archetypes. My wife said that she constantly struggled with the multiclassing, because the needs of the rogue class and the needs of the sorcerer archetype both wanted her one-per-two-levels class feat slots. She wanted the free archetype so that she could multiclass without the conflict. Two other PCs in the Ironfang Invasion campaign took archetypes at 16th level, but that was after they had gotten everything they wanted out of their class feats so they did not feel the struggle.
Thus, in my experience the free archetype is an option to open up more roleplaying without costing the character their class feats. And one in seven players went weird with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just fundamentally a better way to play Pathfinder. It opens up choices dramatically, allows for a significant increase in build variety, greatly helps classes that are otherwise expected to draw on their own feat pools for power, all while being extremely manageable in terms of vertical power increase (i.e. almost nonexistent).
It can be a little bit much at first, but after playing around with it becomes pretty clear that Pathfinder just suffers as a game without it. There's basically no reason not to.
I think that is some serious hyperbole and exaggeration. As a player I like it as much as the next guy, as a GM I'm wary of it (partly for power reasons, partly because it can lead to serious analysis paralysis with some players). If I give it out as a GM I usually give it out in a fairly constrained way.
But to say that Pathfinder suffers as a game without it is just sheer exaggeration. It does just fine without Free Archetype. Its almost as if the game itself and all the published adventures (bar one that I'm aware of) are intended to be played withOUT Free Archetype :-).
And to claim that the vertical power increase is "almost non existent" is sheer nonsense. It is very definitely quite noticeable if the players choose options for power. Note, I'm NOT saying that the power increase is necessarily a huge problem but it most certainly is a whole lot more than "almost non existent".
Someone's experience being different than yours doesn't mean they're lying.
From mine, the game really does play much better with it, it really has done wonders for character variety, and the power issues haven't really ever been meaningful. I'm sorry your play experience has been worse... but I stand by my assessment from every table I've played at or GM'd for. Zero hyperbole.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you're lying about how you experience and enjoy the game. But I don't agree with your analysis, and I think you worded it very strongly.
It's just fundamentally a better way to play Pathfinder.
Calling that hyperbole is reasonable. You like it more that way, but you say it as if it's an absolute truth for everyone. That's a fast way to get geeks arguing with you :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with most of what is said about free archetype.
Dual Class is a fairly big power up.
Free archetype lets you focus more on adding some color or depth to your character.
The entire game is action limited, so free archetype and dual class are adding more options to use with your actions. Free archtype adds more limited options that don't lead to broken combinations.
You still might rarely use the options added due to action limits funneling you into high value options. Some players do like trying out some odd action combination from an archetype just to see what it does. Free Archetype allows more player experimentation, which can be nice to the tightly controlled play in PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is some serious hyperbole and exaggeration.Someone's experience being different than yours doesn't mean they're lying.
I never accused you of lying. I accused you of hyperbole and exaggeration. I stand by that.
Unless you think getting an extra 9 hit points at level 6 as a wizard counts as "an almost non-existant" power up.
Obviously, with ANY option player choices will determine how powerful it is and the range of power for just about ANY option always hits "almost non-existant". But you can't evaluate an option based on players not using it to gain power when you're trying to determine if it does, indeed, potentially add power to characters.
I'll again reiterate that I do NOT think it adds a huge or game breaking amount of power. But, in at least some circumstances, it very very clearly adds more than "an almost non-existant" amount of power.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think free archetype is going to completely break your game. The extra power you get from it is real, but it's not so much that the game can't handle it.
However, you may get the feeling that characters are a bit more samey if the players all move toward the same archetypes that seem really optimal. Also, it can be fun if characters aren't flawless - they can't cover every angle, for some things they're gonna need help from another PC. Free archetype can get in the way of this if you use it to sand down any rough edge and fill any gap yourself.
I really don't agree with the theory that FA isn't a power increase. Yeah, you can take some archetypes that don't move the needle much. But there are also really straightforward choices that do;
* Pick any martial archetype with a "resiliency" feat. You just increased your average HP/level by 1.5. Better than Toughness, which tends to be rated as a good feat.
* Rogue, Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Monk and probably others can get another saving throw to Master. How is a +2 to saves anything else than vertical power increase?
* Rogue dedication is pretty bonkers: pick up light armor (good for low level casters), surprise attack, go on to Mobility (great for casters that need to exit a nasty melee enemy), Dread Striker, Gang Up and Opportune Backstab; add Skill Mastery, Uncanny Dodge and Evasiveness.
* So is Champion: heavy armor, a feat to reduce the action cost of using a shield while striding around, a free reinforcing shield rune, extra reactions for shield block, your pick of the champion reactions which are phenomenal, lay on hands, and all your strikes potentially being Holy
* What about exemplar to just get +2 damage per damage die?
Those are the low-hanging fruit I can think of right away, but there's a lot more. Yeah, you need to be a critical customer because you can only spend so many actions. But many of the things I cited don't cost you actions.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have loved free archetype in the games that I GMed, and didn't feel that it moved the power needle much -- largely because most of the folks in my homegames aren't that rules savvy, so they chose stuff that resonated with their characters.
I think that you could start without Free Archetype and then add it to your game later as your group gets more experienced, though. If everyone is new to Pathfinder, Free Archetype can add to the amount of cognitive load in learning the game. Once folks get more experienced, you can open it up later.
Do you need it? Nope. But it sure is fun to play with.
Hmm
|
|
Free Archetype as a quest reward is an interesting one actually. I'm thinking about that for my other AP
While that archetype can make sense for some characters at that moment, I don't think it'll make sense for all of the characters. But only giving it as a freebie to some characters would feel uneven, so I'm not sure what I might give the others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free archetype allows for a lot more character customization and options. Without it, it can feel like you're just picking from a few pre-fabricated versions of your class. Relatedly, it's also something that's more valuable for players who aren't new to the game- trying out PF2 Fighter or Thaumaturge for the first time, the new system provides some of the novelty. Once that wears off, I find free archetype helps keep things fresh and varied.
Tying the archetypes to kingdom role is a nice thematic choice. You can always post a thread where you list the roles and the archetypes you're thinking about in order to get some input and suggestions. If you get enough, then you can even off your choice of two for each role.
Free archetype does up the customization, which means you can get a wider divide between somebody coming in with a power-gaming mindset and somebody making choices for thematic reasons first. It would be something to keep an eye on normally depending on your players, but in this case, the pre-selected archetypes will mostly avoid that.
In addition to Strength of Thousands, which is specifically built around Free Archetype, the Blood Lords AP can also benefit by allowing each character to free archetype as undead (or allow a character with the skeleton ancestry free archetype in reanimator or undead master).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Free archetype does up the customization, which means you can get a wider divide between somebody coming in with a power-gaming mindset and somebody making choices for thematic reasons first. It would be something to keep an eye on normally depending on your players, but in this case, the pre-selected archetypes will mostly avoid that.
To piggy-back on this, in addition to possible power-gaming free archetypes can also increase "analysis paralysis" for some players where they have even more trouble with making the additional choices.
Free Archetype as a quest reward is an interesting one actually. I'm thinking about that for my other AP
** spoiler omitted **
While that archetype can make sense for some characters at that moment, I don't think it'll make sense for all of the characters. But only giving it as a freebie to some characters would feel uneven, so I'm not sure what I might give the others.
You could consider something like Archeologist or Folklorist as semi-generally aligned with the researching history theme as a fallback. You might be able to fit in Crystal Keeper from Age of Ashes with some massaging of the fey city; or the Riverthun ones to lead into book 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've GM'd with it and without it. Some thoughts:
1. Don't do it in a game with new players. There is already a lot for them to learn, and FA adds more for them to learn. It also adds a ton of decision paralysis, ESPECIALLY if its not heavily restricted. It gives them a giant list of things to go through to figure out what to take, another set of feats, and potentially another set of abilities.
New players already have enough to learn without adding this on.
2. Conversely, adding it on for experienced players gives them a new facet to the game and an extra customization point. It's a popular variant rule for a reason, after all: it opens up build options significantly. Experienced players tend to enjoy it, and ones that lean heavily into customization/system mastery tend to REALLY enjoy it.
3. FA adds power. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Depending on what players take it may not add a noticeable amount of power (especially if they take something thematic that doesn't do much for them because its cool). But it frequently adds "horizontal power" (aka: the player is good at more things and thus has a bigger toolbox for any situation). Some of them straight up add "vertical power" (aka: bigger numbers when they do something).
The amount of power it adds is dependent on what your players do with it, but it's usually pretty well constrained and doesn't generally cause problems. If your players think the game is too hard, this is one way to help with that. If you find it makes the game too easy, the scaling options to buff encounters work pretty well. There's basically no risk of FA "breaking the game", so don't worry about that.
4. You can limit or restrict what archetypes are available via FA to campaign thematic ones if you want. This is right in the rule, and lets people take things that are relevant to what they're doing. As long as you make sure there's enough relevant options that someone just isn't forced to take something that is of no value for them, this works really well. Unrestricted FA (aka: "you can take anything you qualify for") can make some very neat builds but also means people can just use it for power.
Overall I use it in most of my games (not the ones with new players) and folks enjoy the neat things it lets them do. FA lets you make character concepts that you just can't do without it, and that is what I like about it!
So I'm not negative on it at all. :) I think it's a good variant and I use it. Just watch out for those caveats, and IMO don't do it with newbies. Let them learn the system first.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Free archetype allows for a lot more character customization and options. Without it, it can feel like you're just picking from a few pre-fabricated versions of your class. Relatedly, it's also something that's more valuable for players who aren't new to the game- trying out PF2 Fighter or Thaumaturge for the first time, the new system provides some of the novelty. Once that wears off, I find free archetype helps keep things fresh and varied.
If the group enjoys free archetype that's fine of course. But I don't agree that it's required to overcome this staleness problem. I think the root cause of the staleness problem is people feeling that some of their main class feats are already locked in. That you couldn't take a "paid" archetype because you MUST take so many of your regular class feats.
Can't you live without them? Doesn't the "paid" archetype give you something comparably good?
I'm having trouble with the idea that on the one hand the archetype isn't good enough to take if you had to pay for it, but on the other hand that without it the game isn't fun enough. Is it valuable or not?
(I'm not against enjoying free archetype, but I'm skeptical of "needing" it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free archetype allows for a lot more character customization and options. Without it, it can feel like you're just picking from a few pre-fabricated versions of your class. Relatedly, it's also something that's more valuable for players who aren't new to the game- trying out PF2 Fighter or Thaumaturge for the first time, the new system provides some of the novelty. Once that wears off, I find free archetype helps keep things fresh and varied.If the group enjoys free archetype that's fine of course. But I don't agree that it's required to overcome this staleness problem. I think the root cause of the staleness problem is people feeling that some of their main class feats are already locked in. That you couldn't take a "paid" archetype because you MUST take so many of your regular class feats.
Can't you live without them? Doesn't the "paid" archetype give you something comparably good?
I'm having trouble with the idea that on the one hand the archetype isn't good enough to take if you had to pay for it, but on the other hand that without it the game isn't fun enough. Is it valuable or not?
(I'm not against enjoying free archetype, but I'm skeptical of "needing" it.)
For some classes, sure. I can throw away every single Thaumaturge feat without a second thought- a quarter of their feats are already just archetype feats, and the class has plenty of customization with their implements. Trying to play a Kineticist or Summoner that way? Definitely not for me. So much of what their class is is tied up in those class feats. And, in fairness, those are classes with feats that provide more in-class variety.
It's also not really a matter of "is the archetype worth it or not". It's "without free archetype, it'd be several months of playing with a half-baked implementation for a concept that requires both". Starting at higher levels is also a very valid way to address the same issue.
Obviously, that's not the case for everyone. And I should probably mention that this isn't really an opinion I hold for PFS. The levels are a lot faster and it's not just one character. But if I'm sitting down to build out a character I'm going to be playing about once a week for the next two or three years, yeah, I do actually usually need both a bit of the class feats and something else to have a good time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if I'm sitting down to build out a character I'm going to be playing about once a week for the next two or three years, yeah, I do actually usually need both a bit of the class feats and something else to have a good time.
Note, I'm NOT trying to say you're wrong in any way. You get to decide what makes a good time for you. Just expressing my own personal opinion.
I have a significantly different opinion on this. While I agree that lacking Free Archetype can make a small (very small, in my view) number of character concepts unachievable (or at least not achievable in a fun way) there are still zillions of character concepts that actually ARE quite achievable.
If I'm playing in a non FA game I just choose one of the concepts that I CAN build. And there are still a great many concepts that are fun (to me) AND that I haven't played before. Heck, there are still classes that I've never played.
.
But if I'm sitting down to build out a character I'm going to be playing about once a week for the next two or three years, yeah, I do actually usually need both a bit of the class feats and something else to have a good time.
Note, I'm NOT trying to say you're wrong in any way. You get to decide what makes a good time for you. Just expressing my own personal opinion.
I have a significantly different opinion on this. While I agree that lacking Free Archetype can make a small (very small, in my view) number of character concepts unachievable (or at least not achievable in a fun way) there are still zillions of character concepts that actually ARE quite achievable.
If I'm playing in a non FA game I just choose one of the concepts that I CAN build. And there are still a great many concepts that are fun (to me) AND that I haven't played before. Heck, there are still classes that I've never played.
.
Oh yeah, definitely. That's why I initially said "I find" and "it helps". I'm kind of picky with my own classes, and when it comes to helping someone else, I want to have plenty of tools to help represent what they want.
|
|
That's interesting. I suppose leveling up speed also influences the appetite for this.
I recently started GMing Strength of Thousands and Sky King's Tomb and I've actually been startled at how fast they're going (at the beginning). We play 5H sessions and don't particularly rush the story, but after three sessions in SKT the players just hit level 3 (by chapter milestone) and in SoT they hit level 2 after session 2 as well.
So that's actually considerably faster than in PFS. I doubt it's gonna continue at exactly that speed, but I've also hit a stride of leveling up every 2-4 sessions as a player in Age of Ashes and Agents of Edgewatch.
Traditionally I think home campaigns tended to move really slowly, I know mine did. If it takes a long time to gain a couple of levels, then I agree you'd like more choices to make when you do level up. PF2 does a bit less per-level than before, but it makes sure there's something every level and the levels seem to come faster.
That's interesting. I suppose leveling up speed also influences the appetite for this.
I recently started GMing Strength of Thousands and Sky King's Tomb and I've actually been startled at how fast they're going (at the beginning). We play 5H sessions and don't particularly rush the story, but after three sessions in SKT the players just hit level 3 (by chapter milestone) and in SoT they hit level 2 after session 2 as well.
So that's actually considerably faster than in PFS. I doubt it's gonna continue at exactly that speed, but I've also hit a stride of leveling up every 2-4 sessions as a player in Age of Ashes and Agents of Edgewatch.
Traditionally I think home campaigns tended to move really slowly, I know mine did. If it takes a long time to gain a couple of levels, then I agree you'd like more choices to make when you do level up. PF2 does a bit less per-level than before, but it makes sure there's something every level and the levels seem to come faster.
Let's see... the Season of Ghosts game I'm in is level 7 after a year, so that's a level-up every two months. The Depths of Fort Galest is two years in and level 9, so that's a level-up every three months on average. And finally, The Days of Revelle recently hit level 2 after four months of play. They're all weekly games, but scheduling around different continents and chronic conditions means sessions tend to be three hours.
That's interesting. I suppose leveling up speed also influences the appetite for this.
I recently started GMing Strength of Thousands and Sky King's Tomb and I've actually been startled at how fast they're going (at the beginning). We play 5H sessions and don't particularly rush the story, but after three sessions in SKT the players just hit level 3 (by chapter milestone) and in SoT they hit level 2 after session 2 as well.
So that's actually considerably faster than in PFS. I doubt it's gonna continue at exactly that speed, but I've also hit a stride of leveling up every 2-4 sessions as a player in Age of Ashes and Agents of Edgewatch.
Traditionally I think home campaigns tended to move really slowly, I know mine did. If it takes a long time to gain a couple of levels, then I agree you'd like more choices to make when you do level up. PF2 does a bit less per-level than before, but it makes sure there's something every level and the levels seem to come faster.
My SoT group just started book 4 in the 40th game session. They're ~3.5 hours typically.
Both of my Ruby Phoenix groups finished in the low 40s (3 books), and my Extinction Curse group was around 80 (6 books). So my groups average ~13 game nights per book, or a bit over 4 a chapter. Some chapters can vary considerably, though. Like, level 1 tends to be faster than that in almost every AP.
The Kingmaker group I was a player in was up to like 60 sessions and we weren't even halfway done. It was massively different, pacing wise.
I have loved free archetype in the games that I GMed, and didn't feel that it moved the power needle much -- largely because most of the folks in my homegames aren't that rules savvy, so they chose stuff that resonated with their characters.
My own players are good at rules. The four that embraced the free archetypes (see comment #9 above) fortunately use their skill with character design for roleplaying rather than powergaming. As for the other three, one does not put time into character development, and another is a newbie enjoying experiencing Pathfinder as is without major plans.
The third is the smartest in our group, a genius biophysicist, and his Starlit Span magus Zandre is built for combat power. But he does not browse through lists of feats to find the most powerful options. I used to play weekly boardgames with him, and he sticks with one strategy that he planned from the beginning rather than switching strategies in Eurogames where the winning tactic is to constantly adapt to circumstances. (My wife wins these 4-player boardgames half the time, because she adapts constantly and cleverly.)
And the player characters are leveling up to 8th level this week for the module Hurricane's Howl, which has more emphasis on combat than the previous two modules. Thus, I pointed out to Zandre's player that Zandre has three Dragon Disciple archetypes already, so he could expand out to a 2nd archetype in his free archetype slots, and I said it did not have to be magical like the 1st archetype. Then I directed him to Ascalaphus's comment #15, which describes how to get more combat power from archetypes.
He decided that Zandre will take Rogue Multiclass Dedication for his 8th-level free archetype feat, one of Ascalaphus's examples. Zandre often shot her spellstrike arrows from hiding for the reduced AC from off-guard and a rogue's surprise attack would fit her favorite tactics.
Yes, free archetype can be exploited for additional combat power. But sometimes that works with the campaign. The magus Zandre took the heavy hitter role in the party, the champion Wilfred is the defender, the bard Jinx is the healer, the bard Stargazer is the buffer, the rogue Roshan is the debuffer, and the wizard Idris and kineticist Cara are wild cards. I want the heavy hitter at the top of her game so that the others can have fun in their chosen roles, so I gave him a hint to step up his game.
These Paizo forums are helpful in unexpected ways.
I have loved free archetype in the games that I GMed, and didn't feel that it moved the power needle much -- largely because most of the folks in my homegames aren't that rules savvy, so they chose stuff that resonated with their characters.My own players are good at rules. The four that embraced the free archetypes (see comment #9 above) fortunately use their skill with character design for roleplaying rather than powergaming. As for the other three, one does not put time into character development, and another is a newbie enjoying experiencing Pathfinder as is without major plans.
The third is the smartest in our group, a genius biophysicist, and his Starlit Span magus Zandre is built for combat power. But he does not browse through lists of feats to find the most powerful options. I used to play weekly boardgames with him, and he sticks with one strategy that he planned from the beginning rather than switching strategies in Eurogames where the winning tactic is to constantly adapt to circumstances. (My wife wins these 4-player boardgames half the time, because she adapts constantly and cleverly.)
And the player characters are leveling up to 8th level this week for the module Hurricane's Howl, which has more emphasis on combat than the previous two modules. Thus, I pointed out to Zandre's player that Zandre has three Dragon Disciple archetypes already, so he could expand out to a 2nd archetype in his free archetype slots, and I said it did not have to be magical like the 1st archetype. Then I directed him to Ascalaphus's comment #15, which describes how to get more combat power from archetypes.
He decided that Zandre will take Rogue Multiclass Dedication for his 8th-level free archetype feat, one of Ascalaphus's examples. Zandre...
Did you let the Starlit Span Magus free archetype Psychic and take Imaginary weapon?
Did you let the Starlit Span Magus free archetype Psychic and take Imaginary weapon?
No, Zandre took the Dragon Disciple archetype. Her backstory is that her Ekujae elf village in the Mwangi Expanse was attacked by a dragon and Zandre decided to become a dragon hunter.
As a dragon disciple, you study and learn from the example of dragons, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you admire the dragons you emulate. While most dragon disciples do indeed revere their chosen dragon, countless tales are told of dragon disciples born of great personal tragedy at the hands of boundless draconic fury. These disciples have transformed themselves into what they despise in order to gain the power to destroy their draconic tormentor and at long last earn their revenge.
However, despite the possible anti-dragon theme the archetype is about becoming more like a dragon, which does not mix will with an archer magus.
Furthermore, though I offered more flexibility on the Strength of Thousands Player's Guide recommendation of Druid Multiclass or Wizard Multiclass archetypes, I insisted that their free archetypes had to do something with arcane or primal magic. Dragon Disciple barely qualified because of the arcane spells granted by Dragon Arcana feat 4. It was one of the most martial options, and I suspect that that is why Zandre's player chose it. Psychic Multiclass archetype offers occult spellcasting with no arcane or primal magic, so it was not an option.
And if Zandre had taken Psychic Multiclass for extra focus points and imaginary weapon, I would not worry about her combat prowess. Instead, Zandre usually uses plain cantrips, such as ignition, with her spellstrikes.
Did you let the Starlit Span Magus free archetype Psychic and take Imaginary weapon?No, Zandre took the Dragon Disciple archetype. Her backstory is that her Ekujae elf village in the Mwangi Expanse was attacked by a dragon and Zandre decided to become a dragon hunter.
As a dragon disciple, you study and learn from the example of dragons, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you admire the dragons you emulate. While most dragon disciples do indeed revere their chosen dragon, countless tales are told of dragon disciples born of great personal tragedy at the hands of boundless draconic fury. These disciples have transformed themselves into what they despise in order to gain the power to destroy their draconic tormentor and at long last earn their revenge.However, despite the possible anti-dragon theme the archetype is about becoming more like a dragon, which does not mix will with an archer magus.
Furthermore, though I offered more flexibility on the Strength of Thousands Player's Guide recommendation of Druid Multiclass or Wizard Multiclass archetypes, I insisted that their free archetypes had to do something with arcane or primal magic. Dragon Disciple barely qualified because of the arcane spells granted by Dragon Arcana feat 4. It was one of the most martial options, and I suspect that that is why Zandre's player chose it. Psychic Multiclass archetype offers occult spellcasting with no arcane or primal magic, so it was not an option.
And if Zandre had taken Psychic Multiclass for extra focus points and imaginary weapon, I would not worry about her combat prowess. Instead, Zandre usually uses plain cantrips, such as ignition, with her spellstrikes.
Starlit Span still good with regular cantrips. Gouging Claw would look cool too and does good damage. Dragon claw arrows.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your experiences. So if I summerize it, it'd be something along these lines:
- Free Archetypes are in general horizontal power, so in many cases they player have more options, but won't be outright better at what they do anyway
- be beware of the archetypes and options that do give more vertical power, like more HP due to multiclass resiliency feats or feats like acrobat dedication, which grants legendary acrobatics in the end
- having no restrictions on archetypes can encourage powergaming behavior
- in most cases, the game experience was better with FAs
- Introducing them later may be better when having players with little to no PF2
Thanks for your insights, I think I will probably include the FAs later in the campaign then, when the kingdom gets to lvl 2 (which should be PCs around lvl 5), and will try my best to find fitting ones depending on the leadership role of the PC and the kingdom (as a Thaumocracy may including spellcasting archetypes viable), though I'll try my best to steer away from multiclass archetypes whenever possible.
I will probably open another thread for feedback on concrete choices of archetypes later then.
Good luck with the campaign!
Thank you for your experiences. So if I summerize it, it'd be something along these lines:
- Free Archetypes are in general horizontal power, so in many cases they player have more options, but won't be outright better at what they do anyway
- be beware of the archetypes and options that do give more vertical power, like more HP due to multiclass resiliency feats or feats like acrobat dedication, which grants legendary acrobatics in the end
- having no restrictions on archetypes can encourage powergaming behavior
- in most cases, the game experience was better with FAs
- Introducing them later may be better when having players with little to no PF2
Thanks for your insights, I think I will probably include the FAs later in the campaign then, when the kingdom gets to lvl 2 (which should be PCs around lvl 5), and will try my best to find fitting ones depending on the leadership role of the PC and the kingdom (as a Thaumocracy may including spellcasting archetypes viable), though I'll try my best to steer away from multiclass archetypes whenever possible.
I will probably open another thread for feedback on concrete choices of archetypes later then.
I think this is a good summary, and just wanted to state that my opinion with free archetype is that you as the GM should select 1 thematic, or maybe a few archetypes that seem appropriate for the campaign. And that unrestricted archetype access can encourage power gaming, but they may or may not be a problem based on your group. You always tell the players "these archetypes are freely available, but you may ask about others and I will review them for consideration". Some archetypes are really powerful when given for free, and you probably want to avoid those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your experiences. So if I summerize it, it'd be something along these lines:
- Free Archetypes are in general horizontal power, so in many cases they player have more options, but won't be outright better at what they do anyway
- be beware of the archetypes and options that do give more vertical power, like more HP due to multiclass resiliency feats or feats like acrobat dedication, which grants legendary acrobatics in the end
- having no restrictions on archetypes can encourage powergaming behavior ...
With tactical players, horizontal power, i.e.,having more tactical options but their numbers are not better, is as effective at winning combats as vertical power, i.e. better numbers. For example, if the players with piercing weapons find themselves battling skeletons that resist piercing and slashing damage, having a cantrip that deals acid damage is a winning alternative. For an example from my campaign, Roshan's rogue build specializes in debuffing a single strong opponent, because if she is faced with multiple weak opponents, she can switch to casting cone-shaped spells from her free archetype. Also, the spellcasters in my party stay at range and do not flank, but bard Jinx Fuun will send her bird animal companion from her druid free archetype to flank for the melee rogue and champion.
Nevertheless, horizontal power causes the players to invent clever tactics. That entertains me as a GM. Vertical power is less interesting to watch.
If your going to limit the FA to do with whatever role they have in government, then it will be unlikely to have much effect. You basically have to curate the list of options and thus prevent broken combos.
Taking all multi class options off the table did wonders for a few APs I've played through. That's where a lot of the power imbalance comes from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't use it at my tables; between 5ish ancestry feats, 10ish skill feats, 5 general feats, and 10ish class feats, I think the standard game has plenty of decision points and I prefer the opportunity cost of working within 10 class feat choices as opposed to 20. Just personal preference of course; I just don't enjoy characters shoring up their class deficiencies with minimal pain. I'd rather they shore each other up than be islands of functionality. If they do wanna be an island, I want it to cost them most of their budget.