Archetypes for All

Awesome

Prestige Archetypes sound promising, I'm glad we're not completely moving away from the notion.

While I like the Prestige archetype, I'm personally not too crazy about the Pirate one. The Pirate feats feels like they could be covered by General feats to me, thematically speaking.

But I'm one of the ones that will miss the old archetypes far too much to appreciate anything called archetypes again.

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

This is awesome, just what I have imagined, this combine the best parts of archetypes and prestige classes.

Dedication feats seem quite like a feat tax to play an archetype. Pirate dedication doesnt quite have the same power as the class feats it would replace, do the further archetypes feats make up the difference? At face value here it seems archetype players will be set back in power level a bit than a base class player.

Prestige archetypes look to be taking the place of prestige classes, I can get behind that. Putting the Gray Maiden in for testing begs the question - does the book come with any guidance on how to join them, or will such RP requirements on this (and potentially, other prestige archetypes) be left up to the GM? It's possible that the RP requirement will be waived in official playtest work and so isn't included in the playtest book. I could be tempted by this route for the playtest...

It seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

This seems like it will rule out any archetypes that heavily modify a character's core concept, and it seems like level 1 class features are pretty much baked in to every character now.

I agree that, superficially at least, the pirate feats look weaker/narrower than what I expect the class feats they're replacing offer. The only caveat is that they are granting signature skills and from what we've heard so far its possible, but semi-rare, so that might be a large bit of their value.

Cool!
Is Sea Legs a Skill Feat?

I really like this concept, and it feels like a good place to make the prestige classes of old go. Knowing that the feats are available later feels really cool too, but it does make me question; isn't that how all feats work?

It hasn't been stated as far as I've seen, and if it has I welcome correction! But, can you go back and pick a lower level class/ancestry/skill feat at a later level, as we could in PF1, or are they locked into that level? Or, perhaps, is it a matter of selection, and if you pick one at a certain level you can't go back and pick another?

I likes what I sees. Can has more? :)

Dedication feats seem quite like a feat tax to play an archetype. Pirate dedication doesnt quite have the same power as the class feats it would replace, do the further archetypes feats make up the difference? At face value here it seems archetype players will be set back in power level a bit than a base class player.

Considering that the Dedication feat adds a signature skill, in addition to its other benefits, I'm not sure that it's really underpowered. Signature skills are (as far as I understand) required to take a skill to Legendary proficiency, which gates a number of the most powerful skill feats. People have been wondering about ways to get additional signature skills, and the Pirate archetype chain offers at least two of them (Acrobatics and Athletics). Not too shabby IMO.

For myself, I like the design, don't think it looks at all underpowered, and plan to use the heck out of it on characters I build.

I really like this concept, and it feels like a good place to make the prestige classes of old go. Knowing that the feats are available later feels really cool too, but it does make me question; isn't that how all feats work?

It hasn't been stated as far as I've seen, and if it has I welcome correction! But, can you go back and pick a lower level class/ancestry/skill feat at a later level, as we could in PF1, or are they locked into that level? Or, perhaps, is it a matter of selection, and if you pick one at a certain level you can't go back and pick another?

No, you're right on that. The contrast Jason was setting was with PF1 archetypes, where if they overlapped in one tiny way, even if the two archetypes are really amazing together for a concept, they weren't legal to take together.

I think with the exception of heritage feats (only available at level 1), you can always chose a lower level one if you want.

I'm not a fan of Sea Legs being the name of the feat for holding your breath and swimming well. Sea Legs, to me, more refers to exactly the abilities that the Pirate Dedication feat grants.

Bingo. Well done, very well done. I do wish we had options for more than one archetype at a time, since I don't always want to choose which aspect of my character to begin mechanically investing in first, but I understand the need to force some balance on it by making me wait a few levels to swap out other features. This sounds very modular and effective, prestige classes are much more viable with this so long as the feats and dedications are made useful and appropriate, and I can see this working really well for the game. Now if we can see multiclassing in action, I'll be nearly set.

I kind of feel like the Pirate feats are overly specific to a particular type of campaign. Like if you're not playing a sea-borne campaign it's hard to justify them. Maybe stuff like Boarding Action shouldn't mention a Boat, for example.

Also, what happens if Acrobatics was already a signature skill? That seems like the sort of thing a lot of Rogues would have, but does it imply I never want to take a Pirate archetype as a Rogue because I'd be wasting that part of the Dedication feat?

On the other hand, I absolutely love the use of Archetypes to replace Prestige classes. That's brilliant.

Pirate seems like a really specific kind of thing to be putting in the Playtest. Barring someone running a Skull and Shackles conversion I don't see anyone touching it.

Aestriel wrote:

Dedication feats seem quite like a feat tax to play an archetype. Pirate dedication doesnt quite have the same power as the class feats it would replace, do the further archetypes feats make up the difference? At face value here it seems archetype players will be set back in power level a bit than a base class player.

Considering that the Dedication feat adds a signature skill, in addition to its other benefits, I'm not sure that it's really underpowered. Signature skills are (as far as I understand) required to take a skill to Legendary proficiency, which gates a number of the most powerful skill feats. People have been wondering about ways to get additional signature skills, and the Pirate archetype chain offers at least two of them (Acrobatics and Athletics). Not too shabby IMO.

For myself, I like the design, don't think it looks at all underpowered, and plan to use the heck out of it on characters I build.

Thats a fair point. Curious to see how it pans out during the playtest.

I should add, the playtest is the perfect place to check these out and see the relative power compared with class feats. If people find that characters built with archetypes typically underperform those built with class feats, I'm sure that would be very useful feedback for the devs.

Of course, if you're playing a pirate in an urban/high society intrigue campaign in a landlocked city-state, you're unlikely to get to use some of these abilities. So caveat emptor.

Turning Prestige Classes into Prestige Archetypes is a fantastic choice, IMO. Carries on the spirit of my very favorite PrC, the Evangelist!

I'm a little surprised by the decision to lead with a seafaring archetype, given how poorly ocean-bound class options tended to be received in PF1 (with good reason). Would really have liked to see an example that would actually come into play in more than like 15% of adventures. That said, I do really like this implementation of archetypes - much more flexible than PF or SF!

This looks good. I am kind of expecting the magus and warpriest to show up as archetypes.

I agree that, superficially at least, the private feats look weaker/narrower than what I expect the class feats they're replacing offer. The only caveat is that they are granting signature skills and from what we've heard so far its possible, but semi-rare, so that might be a large bit of their value.

Pirate is definitely the most situational archetype in the book, since if you aren't a pirate, chances are you won't want it, but it's also a really useful example archetype to learn the concept because of some of the simpler ways it comes together. I think people will be making a lot of use of some of the non-previewed archetypes, but they pretty much all have something about them that makes them a little idiosyncratic, whereas pirate is very prototypical aside from its niche of a nautical campaign being narrower than the others (which is less important for demonstration purposes).

While I like the Prestige archetype, I'm personally not too crazy about the Pirate one. The Pirate feats feels like they could be covered by General feats to me, thematically speaking.

But I'm one of the ones that will miss the old archetypes far too much to appreciate anything called archetypes again.

For an early accessible feat, we have a bonus to a specific circumstance, weapon proficiencies we may not already have, and a signature skill we didn't necessarily have tagged as such before. That seems like fair weight for a feat. It isn't combat crunch, no, but if one were in a Skull and Shackles type campaign (either the AP converted or a similar often-at-sea setting) this is setting up some good flavor with some options useful to the expectations of that game.

If this is generally typical of them, it's not terrible if you find one you like. There may not be many archetypes (at least early on) that will satisfy a more numbers-driven builder, but honestly the old rule of thumb for archetypes was they shouldn't be strictly more powerful than their base class, so I don't know how much room archetypes will have to deliver 'wow' options vs 'mmm tasty'.

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

Nothing is stopping you from taking pirate dedication with your first level class feat, by the looks of it. It will probably depend on the archetype.

Archetypes on Friday, multi-class on Monday? Could it be, could it be? (Even with the resonance teaser in the parting line....)

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

All we know for sure is that neither of the archetypes described in this blog can be accessed before second level.

Is the distinction between archetypes and prestige archetypes really necessary? What differentiates a prestige archetype?

For the record, though, I love that a) you're making Gray Maiden an available concept off the bat and I hope you do that with all of the major organizations in Golarion (Hellknights, Red Mantis, etc.) and b) I love that the Gray Maiden feats appear to be actually really useful for the kinds of characters who would become Gray Maidens.

Pirate seems like a really specific kind of thing to be putting in the Playtest. Barring someone running a Skull and Shackles conversion I don't see anyone touching it.

Given that the playtest will be accompanied by a custom adventure specifically designed to stress-test different parts of the system, it's possible that there are a few aquatic combats included in that adventure. That would actually make a lot of sense since aquatic combat in the current edition has several complex layers of rules. The fact that it gives multiple signature skills could also factor in to why it was chosen, to see how classes that lack those skills are affected by using the archetype (or how many classes that get one or more of those signature skills still find value in taking the archetype).

Is the distinction between archetypes and prestige archetypes really necessary? What differentiates a prestige archetype?

At a glance, the prestige archetype has more prereqs, those prereqs include specific roleplay elements (must be a member of the Gray Maidens), and the prestige archetype doesn't become available until around 6th level, when a current edition prestige class usually comes online.

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

I like this type of archetype, because it expresses specializing in a an aspect of that class (similar to a wizard selecting a school). Two examples that come to mind are the Armor Master and Polearm Master fighter archetypes from Pathfinder 1. In these, the fighter skips some training in weapons to focus on defense, or skips some training in weapon variety to focus on a type of weapon.

The old system allowed two fighters to be very different, almost as different as a fighter and a ranger, even at first level. The new system sounds like all fighters will have the same generic base abilities and then just advance separately. This doesn't seem much different than feat trees, like the Pathfinder 1 Critical Focus tree, Blindfight tree, or Feint tree.

I quite like this. Very similar to Starfinder.

The only concern I would have would be with classes that are heavily reliant on class feats for their class flavour. In Starfinder the Envoy for example relies completely on their 'Improvisations' for their class abilities and an Envoy character taking Starfinder archetype makes it barely an Envoy. I can see a similar problem happening here if some classes are more reliant on their class feats than others.

A Starfinder homebrew that I think might be good for Pathfinder core is to make it a choice whether to give up Class feats or some other kind of feat in order to choose the Archetype Feat. It messes with the progression by a level though... so it might just be a table rule for any game I might run.

I like what I see with the structure of the archetypes, though my Spidey sense is tingling as to the power level. Just using the pirate dedication as an example, what if I already have acrobatics as a signature skill and am already trained with those weapon? Both of those seem like things easily gained through class (especially ones chosen for a pirate character) and greatly reduce the appeal of the dedication feat.
I worry issues like this will deter players from going with archetypes, but I withhold judgment until I have the playtest in my hands.

FedoraFerret wrote:

Pirate seems like a really specific kind of thing to be putting in the Playtest. Barring someone running a Skull and Shackles conversion I don't see anyone touching it.

Given that the playtest will be accompanied by a custom adventure specifically designed to stress-test different parts of the system, it's possible that there are a few aquatic combats included in that adventure. That would actually make a lot of sense since aquatic combat in the current edition has several complex layers of rules. The fact that it gives multiple signature skills could also factor in to why it was chosen, to see how classes that lack those skills are affected by using the archetype (or how many classes that get one or more of those signature skills still find value in taking the archetype).

It's in more as a prototype/proof of concept (it's the first archetype ever built using this chassis), which makes it the obvious choice for this blog. That said, for group who don't expect much in the way of nautical or aquatic situations, you will be much more likely to use the other archetypes. Those are the ones I've seen in play (including a Gray Maiden). And some of them are really exciting (at least to me).

NielsenE wrote:

I agree that, superficially at least, the private feats look weaker/narrower than what I expect the class feats they're replacing offer. The only caveat is that they are granting signature skills and from what we've heard so far its possible, but semi-rare, so that might be a large bit of their value.

Pirate is definitely the most situational archetype in the book, since if you aren't a pirate, chances are you won't want it, but it's also a really useful example archetype to learn the concept because of some of the simpler ways it comes together. I think people will be making a lot of use of some of the non-previewed archetypes, but they pretty much all have something about them that makes them a little idiosyncratic, whereas pirate is very prototypical aside from its niche of a nautical campaign being narrower than the others (which is less important for demonstration purposes).

It may be good as an example of baseline for archetype design, but as with a number of previous preview blogs, it's a bit underwhelming for purposes of grabbing attention. A little bit like movie previews, the expectation is the preview will be highlighting some of the better offerings of the movie, and if the preview is a bit flat, then the reaction tends to be less enthusiastic than the preview maker wanted. And while I love you guys long time, too many of the previews have chosen to show things that aren't very sit-up-and-notice, and then try to sell us on how that piece is amazing and awesome. (I've been wanting to say that for weeks...)

So the one thing I really hope is not gone from Pathfinder 2nd Edition is Archetypes which interact with, replace, or change class features which are not feats.

A lot of the time I might want to pick an archetype because I wanted to get rid of some class feature which did not fit my concept for my character. For example, a gentleman rogue who would not stoop to stabbing someone in the back (phantom thief), or a lady with an blade of pure energy who does not just blast people at range (kinetic knight.) Sometimes just changing the key stat of a character is really helpful for a concept- like if I imagine my Magus is charming but impulsive not very thoughtful the Eldritch Scion archetype does nicely.

So I hope upon hope, though they may not be in core, that we get some archetypes which fundamentally change a specific class and not just occupy feat slots; though I admit printing a universal "pirate" archetype or "gun" archetype is vastly superior to a dozen different "Uses boats/guns" archetypes.

One thing I like about archetypes being feat lines is that it lets you come into them later in your character's life than PF1 archetypes would allow. This could lead to some interesting development in characters.

Agreed that pirate seems a little niche, but I think it's also fairly powerful if you are in an aquatic campaign. Just hopefully most will be designed to be a bit more broad than that.

Also, if Grey Maiden is an indication, anyone else think the Prestige Archetypes might be a little too powerful? I guess without comparing it to other level 6 or 8 feats we won't know, but it does feel a bit stronger than some of the things we've seen so far.

I'm hopeful for Archetypes to be easier to work with than in PF1, and it's looking like they'll be more versatile (certain selection of Pirate usable for any other Sailor, much?) which is another plus in my book.

I quite like this. Very similar to Starfinder.

The only concern I would have would be with classes that are heavily reliant on class feats for their class flavour. In Starfinder the Envoy for example relies completely on their 'Improvisations' for their class abilities and an Evoy character taking Starfinder archetype makes it barely an Envoy. I can see a similar problem happening here if some classes are more reliant on their class feats than others.

A Starfinder homebrew that I think might be good for Pathfinder core is to make it a choice whether to give up Class feats or some other kind of feat in order to choose the Archetype Feat. It messes with the progression by a level though... so it might be a table rule for any game I might run.

It just adds them to your class feat pool, it doesn't preclude taking regular class feats.

(I will note it did take me a read and a half to get that, though. Could be more clearly worded in the article.)

kaineblade83 wrote:

I really like this concept, and it feels like a good place to make the prestige classes of old go. Knowing that the feats are available later feels really cool too, but it does make me question; isn't that how all feats work?

It hasn't been stated as far as I've seen, and if it has I welcome correction! But, can you go back and pick a lower level class/ancestry/skill feat at a later level, as we could in PF1, or are they locked into that level? Or, perhaps, is it a matter of selection, and if you pick one at a certain level you can't go back and pick another?

No, you're right on that. The contrast Jason was setting was with PF1 archetypes, where if they overlapped in one tiny way, even if the two archetypes are really amazing together for a concept, they weren't legal to take together.

Thanks for the reply, Mark! And that's good to hear and has me even more excited than I was before. I love adding more options without completely locking out old ones, that's one of the things that kept me away from some of the archetypes in PF1 that I might have otherwise taken.

So for example, even if you only took one archetype, you could come back later and pick up any class feats you might have wanted to take but missed out on at the time by picking archetype-related feats. There are, of course, only so many feats to go around, but still, I like this a lot!

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

I like this type of archetype, because it expresses specializing in a an aspect of that class (similar to a wizard selecting a school). Two examples that come to mind are the Armor Master and Polearm Master fighter archetypes from Pathfinder 1. In these, the fighter skips some training in weapons to focus on defense, or skips some training in weapon variety to focus on a type of weapon.

The old system allowed two fighters to be very different, almost as different as a fighter and a ranger, even at first level. The new system sounds like all fighters will have the same generic base abilities and then just advance separately. This doesn't seem much different than feat trees, like the Pathfinder 1 Critical Focus tree, Blindfight tree, or Feint tree.

There is still design space for archetypes that morph something specific in a class. However, putting out several of them for each class would take a pretty big footprint in the playtest book, and the thing we have less testing on is these types of archetypes anyone can take.

Mark, can you tell us how many archetypes are in the book?

So the one thing I really hope is not gone from Pathfinder 2nd Edition is Archetypes which interact with, replace, or change class features which are not feats.

A lot of the time I might want to pick an archetype because I Wanted to get rid of some class feature which did not fit my concept for my character. For example, a gentleman rogue who would not stoop to stabbing someone in the back (phantom thief), or a lady with an blade of pure energy who does not just blast people at range (kinetic knight.) Sometimes just changing the key stat of a character is really helpful for a concept- like if I imagine my Magus is charming but impulsive not very thoughtful the Eldritch Scion archetype does nicely.

So I hope upon hope, though they may not be in core, that we get some archetypes which fundamentally change a specific class and not just occupy feat slots; though I admit printing a universal "pirate" archetype or "gun" archetype is vastly superior to a dozen different "Uses boats/guns" archetypes.

Considering that most class features are now class feats, I'm not sure you are going to get what you want.

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

...

I suspect that the PF1 class specific archetypes can be replicated by a simple collection of class feats (or a class feat tree) - or the Dedication feat could have a class as a prerequisite if the archetype feats change a core part of the class

I like the idea, and it seems fun. But I really do hope they actually release more narrow archetypes after core rulebook. I get why for space they can't here, but in the future I hope we do get archetypes limited to types of magic, or classes or specific religions.

This solves the question of why wouldn't anyone just take an archetype if they just add additional feats to your character - there's an entry cost. I think the mechanic of this works well, although I think you should be able to take your entry feat at level 1, since characters do get a class feat at level 1 as I understand it. This would allow people to begin the game as an archetyped character, which would make a ton of sense for a lot of character concepts.

The power level needs to be watched closely on the archetype feats. Since they're not as broadly applicable as a general class feat, they should probably be a little stronger than a generic class feat as the benefit for their price of being more specialized.

For instance, take boarding action. I like the concept, but that scenario of boarding or disembarking a ship will only come up a few times even in an actual nautical campaign, let alone any other campaign. Even in those few combats over the course of the campaign where you do board a ship, the benefit only applies for one round in that combat. As such, it should at least always allow you to make the strike - making it an archetype-locked instead of class-locked version of Sudden Charge - with it being the bonus damage that is locked behind the disembark action.

I like prestige archetypes as a replacement for prestige classes. I was actually already doing something very similar in my houserules for my Starfinder game! Glad to see I'm on the same wavelength as the designers here.

Overall I'm very positive on this, I just want a close eye on the actual utility of these things. :)

Totally called it!

Class Feats to pick up Archetypes, AMAZING!

The fact that I can advance an Archetype without advancing a specific Class is just great! Multiclass Archetype support is GREATLY advanced with this approach!

Now instead of players feeling like they are "taxed" certain class abilities to get access to an Archetype, they have AGENCY to choose to focus their Class Abilities in this way.

Very well done, I love it!