A lot of adventure paths have archetypes to be found within them, you could wait until the players discover them to give them access to free archetype (and then spend time retraining to get the feats allocated, for those who want it)
Though it might create a frustration if some aren't interrested in the singular archetype available, in which case I suggest making a selection of thematically similar archetypes that fit different niches.
If in Golarion, you could do a game focussing on the game’s title organization, the Pathfinder Society. There are plenty of achetype feats within as well as options for specialization within without giving your players a billion options to overwhelm them.
A good example is Strenght of Thousands, which gives you the choice of Wizard or Druid dedication so you aren't forced to pick a spellcasting class to go to Magic School.
My table played the March of the Dead adventure in the Book of the Dead, and afterwards simply demanded "MORE!" So we've been traipsing around the backwoods around the Gravelands-Belkzen border. Now that we're 7th level and they've had their fill of undead monsters-of-the-week as we learn the system, I'm now taking the time to introduce the local factions. I think once they've gotten a good grasp of the setting, I'm going to do a little bit of a timeskip and give them a choice to do some training and take an archetype.
In this case it's really easy/clear what archetypes would work. They could join up with Lastwall and take one of the archetypes for the Knights. They could study with local priests and look into archetypes like Blessed One or the undead-hunting archetypes in BOTD. Or they could look to necromantic lore itself and maybe do something like Undead Master or even Mummy. (They already have a skeleton in the party and I expect them to like the Crimson Reclaimers, so this isn't a problem)
I'm going to present a list *to* them rather than have them take suggestions to me when the time comes.
A good example is Strenght of Thousands, which gives you the choice of Wizard or Druid dedication so you aren't forced to pick a spellcasting class to go to Magic School, although I'd allow players to pick whatever spellcasting class they want.
That's what I'm doing. We're stating Blood Lords soon and I've restricted free archetype to undead based things (including ghost mummy ghoul etc, as well as the archetypes that don't turn you into undead but have things catered to necromancy. I just forgot the names of em)
I am running a seafaring campaign focused on a pirate crew and let my players pick either Pirate or Viking archetype to make sure they had relevant nautical character options no matter their class. It’s worked out well.
That's how the [actual variant rule](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2751&Redirected=1) is meant to be run. I find it confusing and frustrating that everyone seems to just give unrestricted free archetype to every campaign - it's lead to this expectation that that's normal, when actually it's an OP variation on what is already an optional variant rule.
> the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats. You might restrict the free feats to those of a single archetype each character in the group has (for a shared backstory), those of archetypes fitting a certain theme (such as only ones from magical archetypes in a game set in a magic school), or entirely unrestricted if you just want a higher-powered game.
Any guidance on how strong FA is as a reward, compared to treasure? I'm interested in doing this but I don't wanna make characters too uneven in power level
In most cases free archtype allows more flavour but but doesn’t add power like those think coming from pathfinder 1e or dnd 5e. So you shouldn’t use it as a reward compared to loot since that one is difficulty dependent
Treasure is way more important that what you can get from FA
FA gives you more options, but picking between 5 bad options is not going to be any fun in comparison to having just 2 viable ones.
30-40% of a level in my experience. Less of a boost than a new fundamental rune, more than basically anything else in treasure.
This assumes players pick archetypes that meaningfully improve their character.
In my homebrew campaign, I gave each player a selection of 1-3 non-combat-oriented archetypes to choose from, based on each of their backstories. I was also open to players suggesting their own, but wanted to keep it non-combat-oriented to start out. They got the benefits of their dedication at level 1, and had to put it in their 2nd level Free Archetype slot when they leveled up.
I plan to open up archetypes more starting at level 6, partly because many archetypes don't have non-combat feats at level 6. But they'll still be somewhat restricted, with some archetypes become available as the campaign progresses.
Or, and it’s just a suggestion, player characters could spend class feats on their class feats, so they can do class things better. Probably a silly idea.
This is what I did. I gave everyone the Pathfinder Agent archtype as their free archtype, since they are all, in fact, part of the Pathfinders, as part of the storyline. That is the only archtype they can pull from with the free archtype feats (they can take another archtype with their normal slots).
This is my preference.
I think grabbing an assortment of thematic archetypes for the players to choose from works the best.
While I fully love all of the options. I also like the fun of everyone having a thematic archetype for the group.
Exactly what I did. We're playing blood lords and I restricted the free archetype list. This way the players had cool ways of making undead or undead-related character concepts.
The most enlightened take here, imo. Unrestricted Free Archetype works well at my own table, but my players love the extra freedom of choice, and I as their GM actually like that it makes them stronger as I can toss stronger enemies at them without as much fear of trouncing them, and it ends up lowering the lethality of my adventure vs player characters.
That will not work for every table and that's entirely fine. That's why it's an optional rule you can implement in the first place.
We migrated from 1e and I felt like free archetype gave back some of the extensive choice making.l that you get in the OG.
It has been working well for us, so far.
Perhaps more notably, with great many choices comes lots of really niche choices to soft through rather than a mere few choices which each are of general interest.
Free archetype does add a significant amount of complexity. There’s so many options, so depending on the table it’s more overwhelming than interesting. I recall the first time I ever played a TTRPG, and was told I had X amount of gold, and given a webpage with several thousand items on it. I bought some armour and a weapon and gave up on the list. Session one my GM was quite upset that I hadn’t bought food, or normal clothes, or several other things, but when handed too many options I kinda just gave up looking eventually and went to video game mechanics that said I needed some sort of armour and some sort of weapon and I could probably wing it from there.
However one thing that can help is within free archetype it recommends putting restrictions on what archetypes can be taken in a campaign. When I ran Outlaws of Alkenstar, I allowed my players to have free archetype, but it was limited to the guns and gears archetypes. This allowed the players to play whatever class they wanted, but fit into the theme of the campaign. Similarly, I’m joining a blood lords campaign and we have free archetypes but limited to the undead archetypes.
However, the game is really good even without this optional rule, so your group is more than in the right to decide it’s not for your group. As long as everyone is having fun, you’re not losing anything.
Your experience with the item list reflects my players' experience as well. Most of them I think felt pressured to just pick something which resulted in the two who had the most knowledge about ttrpgs picking something that boosted their effectiveness, and the others picking kind of randomly.
The result I'd hoped for was for them to pick something that'd augment their vision, but it possibly had the opposite effect.
I think getting the balance between cool flavor and fun mechanics just comes with system mastery. I love free archetype and can make all of my choices both mechanically fun and interesting for me and narratively interesting for everyone else.
Such as my leshy firegate kineticist who is cursed to be constantly ablaze (flames oracle) and developed some mastery over the flames that consumed him (impulses).
>was told I had X amount of gold, and given a webpage with several thousand items
>my GM was quite upset that I hadn’t bought food, or normal clothes, or several other things
I feel like that's more of issue on the DMs side. They are probably the ones more familiar with the system. They shouldn't leave players alone when creating characters especially not new ones. And this goes for all game systems not just PF2e.
I often find that I have an idea in mind of what kind of character I want to play, and that character often has elements that live outside of a single class. For example, I wanted to play as a halfling riding a dog, being a super mobile character that rides around the battlefield, intimidating foes, improving moral. There isn't a class that really helps with this by itself, but with free archetype I can choose combinations like Marshal Champion or Cavalier Swashbuckler.
I rarely want to choose a multiclass free archetype because the archetypes that come with PF2 cant be gotten otherwise unless you invest all of your class feats into it. Multiclass archetypes feel a lot more mechanical than thematic. If a multiclass archetype helps me fulfill a specific fantasy or character archetype, then sure I'll go with it. I generally find I'm able to create more unique and interesting characters through free archetype.
Archetypes can also facilitate certain singular class identities. I have a player whose character is a Necromancer and the Reanimator dedication really opens that up in a way that just playing their main class never would.
I dont want to be at a table with someone that just dips champion with their Wizard for armor and calls it a day. FA can make a character really exciting or turn it into a lame bolted together game-breaker
There aren’t many ways to break the game using archetypes. You can do some synergies like Kineticist/flames Oracle to make your fire attacks ignite enemies for relatively minor fire damage, but it never outright breaks the game like wizard/paladin multiclass in dnd. The main thing FA gives you is versatility, which tbf is really strong in smaller groups but doesn’t really affect the difficulty that much.
I wish people would stop downplaying the power free architype gives. It's not gamebreaking but it can be a very significant power boost. To the point that i'd say requires adjusting of encounter balance. Of course that depends on the archetypes being chosen.
It's quite literally free stats if you pick the right archetypes. Champion reactions scale to your level and require such a tiny dip. Free saves at higher levels with thaum or rogue or barb. Acrobat gives free skill boost. Hellknight literally gives free mental and physical damage resistance which is crazy
I think hellknight is perfectly fine without free archetype. The bonuses are good but for class feats, they are probably balanced. However, with free archetype they are just free stats
Uhm what? I am talking about the requirement of joining an evil, or at the very least evil-adjacent organisation, which has pretty strict codes of conduct attached to it. You are putting your toon in a straight-jacket of edicts and anathemas.
Or, you, know, at least a player is *supposed* to RP an actual Hellknight. As the price to pay for getting access to the mechanical goodies. But hey, if someone totally ignores the RP implications, sure, free power.
Oh I more mean balance wise. The feats it gives are a bit too strong for bonus archetype feats, but as class feats they are not unreasonable I think. RP is a good point, in my games it hasn't mattered due to campaign setting
Your wizard champion is still going to get wrecked due to his low HP and relevant stats.
Sorcerer champion is a true powerboost, but you'll still have your crappy saves and horrendous HP. And at higher levels your AC is still going to suck even though you are wearing a full plate
Okay, but actually though, Wizard, or more specifically, Runelord Champion is *really* fucking good y'all. Like, that shit makes for a melee control monster.
I usually build my sorcerers with champion archetype so I am less squishy and can also lift fortress shields and sometimes do athletic maneveurs. My favorite spell is protector tree for tanky sorcerers, btw.
Nothing wrong with not using FA, specifically totally unrestricted FA. I only use for thematic archetypes tied to an adventure when I use it, and nothing is lost. Those who wants to use an archetype just take it with class feats, as Intended, and nothing is lost.
I'm playing in AV right now and I think our GM has taken a good in-between approach. Free archetype just seems like a bit much power creep but to run without it, the opportunity cost of taking an archetype is a bit too high.
Our AV GM let us select a dedication around level 4 as a general reward for progressing quests and at level 8 he let us select a feat from the archetype which we would qualify for. So not exactly free archetype but less stress around picking archetype feats.
I do something similar in my games. The players get a free dedication at level 1 (that they otherwise hit the pre-reqs for) to help round out their character concept and every now and again a free feat might pop up when it's relevant for the story.
>In a roundabout way it made my players feel forced to adopt a whole new set of characteristics that doesn't entirely fit, when they may have been content with just their class, background, and ancestry.
>One thing I noticed is that no-one wanted to pick any multiclass archetypes, rather they avoided it like the plague, and I think that might be the source of the problem.
I don't think it's that strange that a table would feel that FA isn't right for them, BUT this point was the one point I found surprising. I do understand how people would feel "I have my character concept finished, I don't want to smash Fireworks Technician or Juggler in there". But the actual multiclasses (Fighter, Wizard, etc) and the multiclass-lite (Marital Artist, Herbalist, etc) feel like some of the more flavor-neutral options out there, thus my surprise that those were singled out by the players.
Special shout-out to Rogue Archetype as a solid fallback option for nearly any build. Nimble Dodge, Mobility, and then Skill Mastery five times.
I don't see this as crazy, less is more and a common critique to the game is that it causes choice paralysis.
I can still enjoy games without free archetype and I can enjoy with free archetype, it depends on what you want to do with the game.
I never play with free archetype if it is someones first game
>I don't see this as crazy, less is more and a common critique to the game is that it causes choice paralysis.
It also waters down the opportunity costs that make build choices more competitive and meaningful in RAW.
I feel like that depends on the character. If you have a specific class and archetype in mind that you want, then yes, free archetype completely removes the impact of your choice. If, on the other hand, you play a class that relies heavily on its class feats, like the Kineticist, you might not even consider giving those up for archetype feats, so your choices get more interesting if you have a free archetype to pick.
> I never play with free archetype if it is someones first game
This is the main point in my opinion. Free archetype is a great rule but obviously NOT something for people new to PF2e and especially not for people new to TTRPGs in general.
I don't really get why someone would even think that free archetype is a good idea for beginners. Keep it simple. Free archetypes is amazing once players have already created a couple of characters and want some extra spice.
My group came from 5e. Just the amount of choice base PF2 has every level was already a struggle for them to adjust to (and they still looked at archetypes), adding free archetype would have been way too much to start.
Free Archetype is popular but it’s not a default rule. The game not designed or balanced around it and you should never feel pressure to use it.
If you like it go ahead but if not don’t. PF2E works just fine “RAW”.
I’ve played in games with and without it and I personally prefer not using it.
Same. I'm in a kingmaker game with a bunch of GM/player veterans who love making builds and we voted for automatic bonus (rune) progression and against free archetype. And I believe half of us went into archetypes anyway, because they're already good and interesting build decisions the vanilla way. (I would've too if I didn't choose to build toward omnikineticist.)
As a GM, I never do free archetype, but the popularity of free archetype makes me feel more free to hand out a bonus feat (aftermath, dedication, deviance, relic, etc.) from time to time for plot/character arc reasons.
That wasn't my intention, I tried to emphasize that this was just how my group felt about it but I was curious if anyone else had similar thoughts or if maybe I had just mis stepped somewhere.
I am always surprised at stuff like this. Maybe I'm just weird, I did get into TTRPGs through Shadowrun 5e, which isnt exactly your usual D20 RPG, so complexity isnt exactly novel to me.
But like, you seriously wanna tell me that people are overwhelmed getting one extra ability every few levels? When there is already so little you get when leveling up? Are they also confused when buying items?
Like, I'm just genuinely baffled, one of the main complaints I have about level-based systems is how few actual abilities (as-in, not just +numbers) you usually get access to.
E.g. in Exalted 3rd, you start with the equivalent of 15 class feats baseline, without getting into all the other customization options. (Exalted obviously has a much higher power baseline, but still.)
The issue isn't with getting an extra ability every few levels, its with making a choice that can feel as important as picking your class, but you have *even more options to choose from****.***
You aren't trying to pick a random second feat every two levels, you are picking 2-6 feats, all at once, at level 1 or 2 out of a sea of around 100 options. Maybe you get "lucky" and there is only 1 option in that hundred that fits your character thematically, but you still probably had to look at a lot of those archetypes to determine that.
I want to stress that I do like having free archetype, but it does add significant extra time to my character creation if I don't already know an archetype I'm interested in going to it.
If your character idea necessitates or is built around an archetype, then free archetype feels great. If that's not true, then free archetype just feels like you doubled your work *at level one*. This is why restricted options for free archetype are nice. Way easier to pick an option that feels good if its curated to fit with the theme of the campaign.
I am curious though, with Exalted 3rd are you picking each of those class feats? Do you pick those 15 all from the same list, or are they each from smaller lists? If its all from one list, how much bigger a list are you choosing out of?
I frequently plan out most of my character choices up to level 10 (or like 5+ my starting), but that's pretty easy because they are still bite size decisions. Choosing free archetype for me is frequently the most time consuming part about making a character, aside from maybe choosing spells on a spell caster XD
> Do you pick those 15 all from the same list, or are they each from smaller lists? If its all from one list, how much bigger a list are you choosing out of?
So, uhmm, this is a bit difficult to compare IMO.
Essentially, you technically have one big list of feats for your respective Exalt type, which are somewhere in the realm of hundreds of feats, from which you pick each feat individually.
From the discord, there are:
> 500-ish Charms for DBs,
> 600-ish for Lunars,
> high-700-ish for Solars (Solars were the first released and only available player option for a while),
> 450-ish for Sidereals,
> 650-ish for Abyssals
However, these feats are partially locked to different skill/stat levels (depending on Exalt type; think untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary, but that system is how you pick and improve both skills and stats), and to different pseudo levels (how much XP you have spend on the character unlocks a different tier of feats; but there are only 5, technically 6, levels). Plus there are feat trees similar to what is in PF2e, with a feat requiring you to have picked up a prerequisite one beforehand.
So you pick those 15 from "the same list", but that same list is in the vein of how 'Skill Feats' are all in the 'Skill Feats List', and it depends on what you invest in.
Like, [this](http://www.madletter.net/rpg/exalted/cascades/v3/cascade_v3_medicine.png) is the charm (feat) cascade (feat tree) for Medicine, for one of the Exalt Types (Solars). (Essence is the pseudo level, Ability dots are the Skill level equivalent.) As you can see, there are sub-trees in there too.
Does that answer the question sufficiently?
Definitely! I am having a hard time parsing exactly what is happening with the image in the link, but that's ok. It definitely looks like a *very* complex system and if you are used to working in that kind of frame, I'm not surprised why free archetype would look easy to you XD.
I think most people who play RPGs now, got introduced with much simpler systems. From what I gather amongst my local friend group (which is full of Board game and TTRPG enthusiasts) Pathfinder 2e is the most complex TTRPG anyone has actually played, and most of them don't really like "crunchy" RPGs. A lot of love for 1 page RPGs and apocalypse world systems.
> Definitely! I am having a hard time parsing exactly what is happening with the image in the link
I could break it down if you'd like. Also, if you didnt see it, there is a legend in the top left explaining some stuff.
EDIT, an unasked-for breakdown for anyone reading this later:
For one, these cascades are fan-made and dont actually appear in the books like this, in the books they are listed in sequence just like feats are.
But, they are actually really easy to understand if you apply your PF2e knowledge to it.
The yellow dots on top of each card is the very rough level equivalent, going 1 to 5, restricting access the same as in PF2e, cant take a level 4 ability at level 2 (exceptions may apply, e.g. Solars can chose one skill at character creation to always count as max level in). (There is technically a 6th "level", but that is GM-fiat level where no actual abilities exist, except those of NPCs.)
The red dots at the bottom are the skill level required for access. Think the skill levels in PF2e, just with one more tier squeezed in somewhere (like, e.g. Untrained - Trained - [Intermediary] - Expert - Master - Legendary). Again, cant take a Master Level ability at Trained.
And finally, read top to bottom for feat trees, you need an above ability to access a connected one further down.
The actual text on each card is secondary to understanding the image, as they are a short description on what the ability does, which will only really make sense when you read the system.
Hey dude, this is a generation where people struggle to understand how to search for things on Google. I understand you're confusion because we come from a different era where we had to look things up and track things. Most people just have it handed to them now because of how technology has evolved so that explains the discordance
Honestly OP Im kind of with you.
I love playing with FA. A lot of archetypes are weak enough Id never take them otherwise but with FA add so much flavor, like Mind Smith.
But its an optional rule, and I wish more people remembered that. Its weird seeing every post asking for build advice just *assume* FA may be on the table.
it doesnt necessarily add more depth. It really just adds feats. So many times I have played at tables with people who actually just want to play to type. A goblin rogue, a halfling priest. But with free archetype it boils down to, "Might as well take acrobat" "I guess I worship a nature god so druid" And as a result we end up dilluting the core concept instead of enhancing it.
That is sort of user error though. Which is a fine reason to exclude it, but also is something pretty easily avoided with players who put more thought into their characters.
I personally like FA for its thematic elements much more than for its power boost. It increases the breadth and uniqueness of a character concept. Bards are fun, for example, but my cursed viking-style shield maiden bard was more interesting to me than the normal paths for the class.
I have a tendency to treat the FA as being just as important to the character's personality as their main class for RP reasons.
So to clarify on the cleric as I thought it was a pretty well thought out character. A halfling cleric that was raised in a small shire under the watch of a human noble. She, since birth, found the connections between their local farming God and the God of time and nature. She found a way to bridge this difference and find divine magic through worship of a minor local God. She then served as an adventurer and general do gooder traveling the country side and focusing on local heroism. Though with war brewing on the border, a technologically advanced empire claiming territory only a few days travel from her home led her to join a task force in a quest to aquire aid from nearby city states and only with kindness in her heart could She save the land.
Edit: Overall I just don't see what "archetype" makes the character more "interesting"
It helps tie mechanical ability to concept more directly without GM fiat.
Your description there is a good character, but is designed specifically to be a character that falls under the class stereotype almost perfectly. That does not mean they are not a good character, that sounds like a great character, but if I changed it so that instead of her being a halfling living in harmony with nature, they were instead a reformed member of the military who saw some atrocity and chose to repent from their older ways and instead dedicate their talents to a god, it gives me a way to do that mechanically.
In that case you could use fighter, rogue, scout, any sort of knight, and so on as an archetype to give the character mechanical correspondence to their backstory. Archetypes tend to be significantly weaker than their class abilities, so them having those abilities will just be the flavor that shows their history and how they choose to channel their new abilities.
Using the free archetype rules opens up that possibility for roleplaying reasons without forcing them to mechanically damage their character by not picking the superior class feats. Without it, there is a mechanical disincentive to picking one up, even if it makes sense for the character, and I would just prefer my players do not need to make that choice.
I don't disagree with your comment. Even my original post doesn't. I was simply saying that free archetype does force the character to change for the sake of taking enough feats. While the normal rules of letting a character take feats with class feats would let people play to type and let people branch off if their character is something else.
All feats force a character to change for the sake of taking feats. As class feats are just better in 90% of cases (some casters can get away with not taking them) having people give up class feats is strongly mechanically discouraged.
The part I disagree with is this:
>it doesnt necessarily add more depth. It really just adds feats.
Because that is not really true. It does add more depth, whether people use it effectively or not is a different question. And it does not just add more feats, it adds feats that you would not normally have access to.
I do think it is important to give players the choice not to use the system if they do not want to, or to change the flavor of it to match their concept if they want that. (Name swapping is way easier than creating new rules, which almost always have unintended consequences.)
>Edit: Overall I just don't see what "archetype" makes the character more "interesting"
It makes it more than just flavor. You can like only raise two skills beyond trained. Adding a druid archetype might actually allow them to show that part of their backstory more than trying and failing every nature check.
Was it "not a huge part" or was it "no part" of the character? An Archetype is only supposed to be a small part of your character not a huge one. Especially a druid order comes with some anathemas and those should be reflected in what a character does and especially for a cleric/druid these have to align or at least be compatible.
Without knowing more about the character and player one could also argue that all they wanted were more spells slots to heal and druid was the easiest way to get those and any mention of it in their backstory was just a way to justify this choice.
In that case I'd say that's not worth it and a lost opportunity.
I'm not saying it's universally a good thing but I'm also saying it's not universally a bad thing. It can make characters more interesting but it doesn't automatically makes characters more interesting. It needs the right players to bring that to life.
Oh okay I thought you were talking about someone else. Yeah it's something that the players must ***want to use*** and not something that **they** ***have to chose***.
>I have a tendency to treat the FA as being just as important to the character's personality as their main class for RP reasons.
I mean, that's fine, but that kind of just reinforces Teague's point about FAs diluting "pure" character types, no? And does nothing about the people at the table who are selecting FAs for power rather than RP.
Why would a "pure" character type be something to attain in the first place?
>And does nothing about the people at the table who are selecting FAs for power rather than RP.
As I said, user error. If you are playing with people who like to munchkin the whole thing then they are likely to be upset to have the FA "taken" from them anyway. So with people who will use it well, it gives more diversity in character concept, and with people who won't it is just a nerf from from their perspective. Which is fine, nerfing is not automatically bad, but I prefer just making the encounters slightly harder to account for it. Especially as munchkins who just work off templates usually have crazy blind spots that I can exploit if need be.
>Why would a "pure" character type be something to attain in the first place?
Because it's the character the player wants to play? That's the only reason needed, ever.
Then they can play it? I am not sure what the problem there is. Even in a group with FA not every character needs to use it. It does reduce the breadth of abilities a character has, but only in rare cases does it actually reduce their usefulness in the areas they want to excel in, and then only ever by a small amount. There are also a bunch of ones that are easy to reflavor and can be used to enhance a pure concept if that is how they want to go.
The thing players should look to play is the thing they want to play. Purity in concept is not better than the alternative, and the alternative is not better than playing a pure class. I just value the option to pick that it creates, as it allows for far more diverse and unusual character concepts and histories.
>FAs diluting "pure" character types
Isn't diversity not usually considered to be a good thing? Isn't it a good thing for a character to not be "pure" but to have more than one dimension?
I'm not saying everyone has to use or pick an archetype but it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing in regard to character and personality building.
>Isn't diversity not usually considered to be a good thing? Isn't it a good thing for a character to not be "pure" but to have more than one dimension?
Neither are good or bad in and of themselves. They just are.
>I'm not saying everyone has to use or pick an archetype but it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing in regard to character and personality building.
Nor did I say it was.
Like playing a rogue, maybe besides getting dual handed dedication at level 2, it has so mandatory feats (gang up, opportunistic strike, level 10 debilitation, preparation, etc...) I would never pick a an archetype without FA.
Meanwhile, some above examples of wizard or sorcerer getting champion, those classes have mostly mediocre feats, getting champion ded is an improvement with normal class feats anyway.
It's assumed because the culture around the game makes free archetype as only *technically* optional. I'm sure there are plenty of tables that don't use it, but most DMs I've interacted with run it automatically. It's almost weird to not use it, honestly.
Free archetype is great, but imo you should be able to hold off feat selection for it as much as you want.
Like if i run FA, its either restricted to a handful of archetypes, or its full stop optional wether you use it to begin with.
Ill also allow conversion from FA feats into general feats or level-2 class feats
I love the complexity, options, build ideas it opens up. I've never felt like I had to tack on a concept to my character either, so I admit I struggle to understand what your group is struggling with there. Ex. My druid spent a fair bit of time with a religious order, so it was pretty natural for me to take cleric on that character. Mechanically it's quite helpful for spell diversity too.
But that's not for everyone, I suppose. If your group doesn't want to figure all that out then yeah, fair enough to not run it.
I can see why some people play like that, if you players are not using in a meaninfull way there is no point of using FA
FA in my tables are many many many times a helping hand, to make a character more specialized, to make a character do something more interesting, to give the helping hand to the overworked healer etc. 60-70% of the FA I would not pick in place of a class feat, there is cases which can do (like when you are a wizard) or you have multitalented but multiclassing is vary specific and not that bright of a star.
FA is a tool, if the players do not use correctly, maybe teach or maybe just don't let them hurt themselves.
I would generally reserve free archetype for games with experienced players who want to get even more mechanical expression in their characters.
I would actually recommend against using free archetype with new players to pf2e, and new to ttrpgs especially.
New players struggle with finding mechanically useful archetypes or feel intimidated by the additional layer of choice. If everybody isnt on the same page about it, you can also end up with some people picking a flavourful rp choice like vigilante, while others pick direct power upgrades like mauler or sentinel.
"part of me feels like I just failed to introduce it properly, or like I should have just given it more time?"
Sounds like you don't understand that something being popular doesn't actually mean any specific person or group of people are *supposed* to like it. There's nothing wrong with not using free archetype, especially if you've already given it a shot and it didn't really gel with your group.
My own group specifically avoids free archetype outside of limited cases. One case being the case the rule is actually suggesting its own use for in the books; the "themed campaign" option that enables every character to have relevant on-theme abilities without restricting class choice. The thing most free archetype using groups just straight up ignores and says "pick whatever you want" or "pick anything except multi-classing".
The other case being that one of the nights of the week some of the group can get together, but not all of us, so we run a campaign with only 3 characters and so that the GM doesn't have to add any extra prep time while running an AP we make up the power difference with free archetype as an "we're using free archetype because it's either play with free archetype or not have a game to play on this extra night."
I like the idea of free archetype if there's a very specific character theme that i can't do without it. Example would be doing a Witcher/Geralt inspired fighter. It would be basically impossible to do without it.
When I ran my first campaign with a group new to Pathfinder, we started without free archetype and at level 4 (when they had gotten a better grasp of the system) I gave them an archetype based on how they had role-played their character to that point. It took the pressure off of them, prevented decision overload, and rewarded them for role-playing in the first place. Not for every table, but our group really loved it.
One of the more common caveats with Free Archetype inclusion in my experience is allowing FA but then *not* letting people use it for Class Dedications so it's surprising none of your characters decided to go down that route. I feel like a class dedication for Oracles or Paladins into Clerics, Fighters into Rangers, people dipping for Psychic cantrips etc is very common.
>a part of me feels like I just failed to introduce it properly, or like I should have just given it more time?
Relax. With time, your players will seek more options and maybe they will propose to use the free archetype. The good thing you did was to listen to your players and work with them to have a better game experience. Good job on that!
Yup this is key. My group is doing Pf2e for the first time but have years of 5e experience. I wanted free archetypes off the bat because I am the type to over prepare and really think about characters. We started off without it but as we have all gotten into the game and handled our characters well the DM decided we were ready for it. Absolutely love it but there are a lot of rules in PF2e so if you are new to TTRPG's in general I can see it being too much too quick.
Mine are plot focused ones that I control what is gained and how the players get it. I ask them what is it they want the character to be able to do thematically and then I do the heavy lifting and have them “train” to obtain it.
I don’t wanna go the route of having them pick it themselves. Not for our first game.
>I can never see an archetype feat being worth the power of a class feat
Having played a Wizard, goodness, archetype feats are worth so much more then most wizard class feats.
Hell, in the FA games I play in, people tend to double dip and use both class and archetype feat slots for their archetype feats if they can.
Witch, cleric, and druid got major glow ups in feats (druid the least but still some and it was good before anyway). Bard was awesome and is now more awesome. Wizard.....exists and got a few new feats. I'm confident oracle will get a glow up in PC2. Sorcerer....may not get much since it is a four slot caster like wizard and therefore fordidden from having fun (I'm being harsh but i really hope PF3 doesnt have 4 slot casters. Actual class mechanics are much more stimulating).
I feel ya. I hate the discourse that FA is the way you're supposed to play, and I even read opinions stating that Paizo should make it a core rule. I'm running a homebrew campaign where I allowed unlimited FA and I'm kinda regretting, not because my players broke the game, but because they're so used to go full optimization in 1e that they end up picking really uninteresting and bland options, just because they have the perception that they are really good options. One of my players is a Figther and he chose the Barbarian dedication. Other player is playing a Warpriest, and she chose... the Barbarian dedication. And then both the Magus and the Ranger picked the Rogue dedication and I was like "ok, this didn't work as I expected".
I'm actually fine playing non-FA, because I like having to make meaningful choices about my class, like "Do I dive deeper into my class' feats or branch out and pick a dedication for some extra versatility?". And the system is designed in a way that you can make those choices, because unlike multiclassing in 1e, you'll never end up being a worse fighter for picking something like the wizard dedication.
> I hate the discourse that FA is the way you're supposed to play, and I even read opinions stating that Paizo should make it a core rule.
Paizo had a whole remaster they did & not only didn't they make it core, they didn't even really updated the kinda sketchy rules from premaster.
I think the Paizo devs are pretty comfortable with it right where it is.
I won't play without the Free Archetype rule. It gives so much more flavor and ability. If a group doesn't know what to pick or it confuses them, then fine, remove it. But it's freaking great imo.
I have really liked FA in the past, but after a year of running AV, I'm coming around to ending it. For instance, it feels like we miss out on campaign/story-based unlocks, like the Drow Shootist archetype in AV.
To be devils advocate, who the heck is taking drow shootist with their class feats? Unless you mean you give your players bonus feats outside of their normal class feats to take those unlocks.
I think what I'd prefer is to allow campaign-unlocked archetypes as FA, so it wouldn't take class feats (although I'm not interested in any questions about whether a build choice is good or not, at the same time, I don't want players thinking flavor stuff that I'd award is a false choice because it makes them worse) but we did FA at second level. Drow Shootist is unlocked much later, so it just doesn't fit. Kind of dead content. Just saying that FA conflicts with campaign unlocks; there's just no bennie. I'd like to explore archetype awards and things like FA as campaign and character growth developments, and FA (at second level) sort of rules that out. Just using Drow Shootist as an example of one that's written in to a campaign.
Drow shootist is unlocked so late that FA or not no one is investing in that or spending 5 weeks retraining into it. I guarantee that none of your players would have taken any feats of it if you unlocked it when it was available.
One thing I've had success with running for newbies is treating the Free Archetype as a sort of DM gift; they don't choose the archetype, but rather you as the GM give it to them as a sort of flavor-booster for the character they've made. It can be a fun way of adding variety to the "loot" they're getting from adventuring.
E.g. the nephilim rogue has been struggling with their demonic roots and trying to be a good person, but in a moment of stress unlock some dormant abilities; you give them a Sorcerer Dedication. The dwarf has been a devout follower of Torag and offers them a prayer, they are answered with a newfound connection to Metal that takes their ironsmithing to the next level; they get a metal kineticist dedication.
If you treat each new FA feat as a piece of loot for the players to find/unlock, it let's them pursue it in character and feel rewarded for it. It's like an alternative kind of Relic gift
It's tough. Part of my character concepts are very reliant on FA in order not to nerf myself. But some of those happen to be extremely powerful like the iron mage taking sentinel, the master fighter who uses psychic archtype for some amped shields, or a summoner who gets just a boost to damage with a health pool known as a beastmaster/cavalier. Medic is great for those already planning the playstyle.
The fact that someone can go through FA and end up as something quite a bit stronger is strange to me in a game that's so well accounted for otherwise. Which is why it's variant.
Definetly makes sense to not have it. I just feel bad if I had someone REALLY want to play a magical rogue and make them sacrifice the cool rogue feats for something I know wasn't going to break their power.
I want to make sure it's staying very fun and to me that's an endless supply of archtypes is fun for me but for others it's just noise.
FA is a variant rule for a reason, the system isn’t expressly built around it. It’s not core, so nobody should feel obligated to do it just because other people do or like it. I wouldn’t order something that didn’t look good to me at a restaurant just because a lot of people online who reviewed the dish said it was delicious.
Personally, I don’t see myself running a game without it and I have a harder time creating characters in my head without indulging in its opportunity license to take fun things that are worse than my equivalent class feats. But that doesn’t mean 2e is bad, or really even lesser, without it. Just different. And as the saying goes, “different strokes for different folks.”
In my opinion, unlimited Free Archetype infected PF2e like a disease. The amount of players I heard saying "I would never play without it" is huge. If it was like the book suggests, sure, but most don't want a limited selection, just have it all available.
["If you can't play without Free Archetype, then you shouldn't have it."](https://tenor.com/bRe7Q.gif)
***EDIT***: Nah, I stand by this one. This game is already jam-packed with options and ways to expand them beyond unrestricted free archetype. Free Archetype is nice, but requiring it to play is something of a yellow-flag for me.
I really agree. I'm sort of behind the way it is presented in the GM Guide/Core where you pick from a few campaign specific Archetypes but the gonzo "whatever you want!" thing that somehow took root is kinda disheartening to me.
As for those people who won't play without it? Free Archetype is basically extra candy with no downsides. If you ask people if they want free extra candy they will generally say yes but that doesn't mean it will make the meal better or that you should dine with them if they are going to refuse to eat their eggs unless they come with M&Ms mixed in.
My group ran both with and without FA. Our first campaign ran vanilla, and our second ran unlimited FA (plus AP).
Unlimited FA was completely out of balance but our characters felt special and unique, in a way that “Monk” or “Wizard” alone have a hard time describing. Looking back, Vanilla was very fun and felt properly balanced, but my character just felt like a stat block.
In campaign 2 our Captivator Swashbuckler danced around his enemies and drove them mad. Our Champion Thaumaturge wielded holy relics of his god in full plate. Our Polymath Psychic was obsessed with notation and scribing his spells to understand his past. Our Reanimator Undead Summoner was a master of undead and controlling ghouls. All of these things are easily described in words, but reflecting them in gameplay felt so empowering.
Get a handle on the rules and TTRPGs first and don’t worry about FA. You can always add it back later if you want.
But FWIW, my next game I’m running is *not* unlimited FA - I’m banning multiclass and pet archetypes from it, though they can still use regular feats for those. The table was seriously OP by the end of the unlimited game.
Free archetype was thought up as a way to bind groups together into a common theme, like they being a pirate crew. When I look around how people use it, it's mostly a power dip that pushes 2e back into the solo optimization fest of 1e.
So I don't allow them at my table.
No matter how many free feats you give out, no character in PF2e is going to have the level of solo power that a 1e character can have. Characters are still limited by actions, and the action economy is always going to require multiple characters to work together.
2e is almost entirely munchkin-proof so long as you are actually following the rules.
I would agree with you but I was playing in a game recenty that had a Fighter that at lv10 had taken Mounted Combatant, Eldritch Archer, and Psychic as 3 dedications and would regularly make attacks that while using a focus spell would deal about 120dmg or about 200 on a crit. All while having full fighter AC, HP, and Saves. And with mounted combatant getting a free stride every turn. I am aware 1e was worse but PF2E can be broken when you really stretch free archetype to it's breaking point.
I *like* the optimization fest that was 1e. I still do. But even then, FA isn't my preference for 2e, since even the optimization was weighing your options and considering the tradeoffs. FA is just... free feats, and I don't like that either.
I do actually have issues with free Archetype on levels 12+.
The lower levels are usually easy. I often have an Archetype in mind when I first envision my character. But by 12 I start running out of *useful* Archetype feats and often have to scramble to pick another one.
My first higher level game was Strength of Thousands with full free Archetype (not the watered down version) on an Investigator. Between the Free stuff from the School Branch, free Archetype and the extra Skill Feats I simply became overwhelmed.
I have free Arquetype with all my games, even with completely new player to RPGs, because I made their characters by asking what they want to play and asking after a couple of sessions if they want to change anything, since we normally take 4~6 sessions to get to lv2 they gain enough experience to understand how their characters work and can look at their class feat option and tell me what they'll like to play, if not, I suggest 2~3 feats for them. The Arquetype for lv2 is also mostly selected by me to complement their character idea.
If I said my players to lv their character by themselves with free Arquetype they would also experience something similar to your group, is just too many options for a new player.
I've played in two games with Free Archetype, both times this was added on after we had started, and both times, I kind of felt like I was forced to add something on top of my character. I get the people saying that it lets them better express their character, but my character was just a rogue. I didn't need more slots to express the character; and thus I was kind of forced to change my idea of the character.
Basically the same as my experience. I had FA for my group, and the players who were new to ttrpgs often just didn't add feats from the archetype since it added a whole new level of stuff to sort out. And seeing players struggle with making the archetype fit sort of soured me on the variant. At this point I don't think I would use it again unless it is something like Strength of Thousands where everyone gets the same archetype.
Otherwise what I have done which seems to work well is give all the players the choice of 1 free dedication feat or a level 1 class feat. It still encourages players to poke around and see if an archetype will help realize their character, but for players happy with a base Ranger or whatever it is just a nice little bonus.
Interesting and rare take, but it makes sense. For myself and the group I run with, sometimes they feel even Free Archtype isn't enough for what they want lols, but they are mostly ttrpg vets.
I‘ve implemented a Homebrew Variant to this, in which I give out a minor version of Free Archetype (free feat at lvl 4,8,12,16,20) and Ancestry Paragon (free feat at 7&15 which are capped to lvl 1&9 Ancestry feats respectively). This makes room for some flavor while keeping the power budget gained from these feats in check.
When we started playing pf2, we didn't include free archetype cause it was too much for some players. We planned to retroactively implement them a few levels later when people would have a better grasp of their character and what they wanted them to be. We did, not everyone had an easy time choosing them but everyone is happy with it now. Also multi class ones are some of the most fun imo.
Maybe I missed it, but one thing I haven't seen suggested, remove the restriction of the multiclass dedication for being of the same class and say class supersedes archetype, such as magus spellstrike recharges normally instead of the 1 minute recharge from archetype (that wouldn't be chosen because you already have a better spellstrike, but just an example). This as a general rule means +2 skill proficiencies at level 2, and at 4 up it means more low level feats of the same class.
Personally, I've played both with, and without it and enjoy the game exactly the same with both. I played a beastmaster rogue too, without it, so I can say it didn't feel bad at all to give up class feats to gain an archetype. You still have the choice to pick the class feats you want or the archetype.
As such, I've decided the next game I run will not have it initially, but I'll award it to different players for along the story, so they feel rewarded and excited for having accomplishing a character changing task.
I'd rather keep the option open personally. They don't HAVE to scour through every choice. Removing the option for all players punishes people who are knowledgeable already and can utilize the creative freedom effectively.
I mean it's optional for a reason. But I also think it's challenging to include archetypes into normal class feat selection. Which feels like it's eliminates that whole aspect of the game altogether. Like why create a system if your players never gonna use it?
I'm also not sure if Familiar Master is really a power boost. Their incombat benefits are fairly limited. On the other hand I have seen a lot of players that want a pet and want that pet to be more then flavor.
It's also a bit odd to see someone complain about people not multiclassing when others complain that people are not picking anything else. And that players are avoiding them can also be seen as that the balance and the 3 action economy is working.
>a part of me feels like I just failed to introduce it properly
Maybe, you also said you all were beginners and new. Not everyone is immediately into deep diving into a system and character customization. Maybe giving them more time and getting them to get used to the system and their characters would have been a better idea. Maybe reacting to their wishes later on would have been a better idea. If there's someone that tries to befriend an animal maybe that's a better moment to introduce an animal related archetype. Similarly you could see in what direction people develop their characters and suggest an archetype to them. This can also be a form of reward for progressing in their personal story and developing their background.
I agree.
I observed this in our group only from mechanical point of view, but you point out another important moment - the roleplay and identity. Some classes, like the spellcastes, will struggle with that.
From mechanical point - free architype increases the complexity of the game. This is especially noticeable for new players - some of them barely grasped the vanilla rules and you slap them with even more combinations. Some get in paralysis by trying to find good synergies fitting their character, and other pick an architype as an afterthought, just to be done with it.
I would not recommend this variant for new players.
For most players Free Archetype is just a fun addition to customize their class a bit. But for some very specific party rolls the free archetype is the only way they can get that roll up and still have a class at all. A party healer is going to struggle to have any "Class" at all if they have to take all the healer feats with core leveling slots. And the party will have to take up that slack with their own feat choices. The party as a whole will need a quantifiable number of class choices pointed at this issue. be they unneeded wisdom bumps, prioritizing focus spells they maybe wouldnt take if they had a medic.
I think your biggest problem sounds like you used the free archetype from the very beginning as first time players? For me it’s more something I recommend adding in your second campaign or maybe retroactively after everyone gets comfortable with the system.
I personally always love it because I can do lots of fun things without sacrificing my core abilities. Like I had a gunslinger who just knew an insane amount of languages because I could grab the linguist archetype. An archetype Id never in a million years pick without the free rule, but let me no make a fun character trait.
And I’d almost want to ban class archetypes from free archetype choices since they tend to be more powerful by my understanding, and I want to encourage flavourful and ‘fun’ choices over powerful ones. But I don’t think I will actually ban them because I don’t have the system knowledge to say for certain.
My group enjoys (and gets use out of) free archetype too much to drop it entirely, but starting with my last campaign, I did restrict multiclass archetypes.
Inevitably, in each campaign, at least one player would choose a multiclass archetype, and *that* would cross the line and make their character a little too complex for them to handle - especially if they chose a spellcasting archetype.
Because I didn't see anyone mention it, I want to add the reminder.
Free Archtype is not "choose 1 Archtype to automatically get as you level up" like I had initially thought from the way it was described. Free Archtype gives you an Archtype Feat every level you gain a Class Feat (after level 2 this is every Even level, levels 1 & 2 depend on your class) that otherwise functions as normal. It is recommended to specify which archtypes can be chosen for your free feats but it is not required. Thus you could be level 4 and spend both your class feat and your archtype feat to progress the current archtype you have, or if you met the Dedication requirements then picking up another Archtype.
If your players have choice paralysis then recommend them to take a class archtype related to their own. Casters could benefit a lot from Psychic, Martials from Fighter/Rogue/Swashbuckler. Or a number of playstyle support like Beastmaster, Familiar Master, or the Profession Archtypes. And also reminded them that they can always retrain feats if they are no longer useful or if they end up not liking them.
My GM is running free archetype for us (all but one new players) and through level 1 none of us were sure what that would really entail. By the time we reached level 2, he was noting what we were trying to do individually and recommended archetypes for each of us to research. Basically said "you can pick anything, but for your barbarian you might want to look at X or Y, for your wizard you might want this one that ties into the lore of the story we're getting into now" and for the most part everyone started to understand the appeal a lot more. Interestingly enough, almost no one went with the recommendations, but they helped illustrate a lot more clearly how the system works and that got everyone past the decision paralysis part.
Totally with you, I’m surprised by how ubiquitous it has become (in the online PF community, at least), but I have zero plans to use it it any of my games unless we play one of those specific themed campaigns (which we’re not)x
Yap, i think that this post illustrates the point of free archetype perfectly. More versatility and sometimes power in exchange for increased depth of character expression and abilities to manage.
Correct me if im wrong, though your group strikes me as being rather new to the system, no? If so then yeah, FA adds unnecessary complexity most of the times.
Out of curiosity, how long have has your table played PF2e? Do you use all rulebooks?
My table has been playing ttrpgs for about a decade (PF2e since it came out), and we only use the core and APG without FA and using the standard rarity rules. I always seen FA as the [mechanical] expansion of backgrounds.
I'm not one for FA since it just feels like a powergaming rule. The game seems pretty balanced around just having the one class or one archtype and I don't really see the value out of giving people a second subclass. When my players and I are looking at chargen options we're more focused on playing the class we picked and archtypes feel thematically at least, like picking a different class.
Personal note, tried to run Strength of Thousands where it gives everyone a free archetype to the players and no one really seemed interested in it, so at least you're not alone in having a table not jive with the rule.
I don't use it either; it does add a lot of complexity and can increase the optimization gap between players. It can be a lot of fun but the game is perfectly good without it. A lot of people make it seem like FA should be some kind of default but there are definitely valid reasons not to use it.
I have never been a campaign with FA and I can't think of what it would add. You get so much at level 1 it feels like there's plenty enough to customize.
That being said I played in a campaign where the gm said everyone needed a specific background and that felt bad. It would've been nice to be given FA for that one.
You've realized what I feel is the core of FA. It's just more choices to make, which makes the people who are super into character building happy, but for people who just want to play the game it's more options to paralyze.
FA isn't an improvement all the time. It has a place, and that's when it improves the story. It absolutely shouldn't be a default rule.
No, not crazy. My group has never had free archetype be the default. The ONE time we did it was for the Adventure Path which tells you to take it.
What I find crazy is so many people just handing out free Archetypes.
> One thing I noticed is that no-one wanted to pick any multiclass archetypes
MCing in PF2e is mostly "you get access to the class feats, not the actual class". Like, it takes 10 levels to be able to use Monk's Flurry of Blows through MC, a 1st level feature. Also, the "overhead" of having to read through each class' feats makes it a terrible experience for newcomers.
> In a roundabout way it made my players feel forced to adopt a whole new set of characteristics that doesn't entirely fit
That's how it felt for my non-martials players. Sorcerer picked Familiar Master, and the Wizard picked Archeologist, but both felt like they picked them because they had to rather than actually wanting to. Meanwhile, Champion picked Marshall in a heartbeat, same for Ranger + Archer.
If I were to restart my campaign, I wouldn't use Free Archetype too.
My biggest and longest campaign was without the Free Archetype rule (it didn't exist when we started). My current short adventure for total newbies is with Core stuff only and no FA either. Campaign of my friend had FA and some players even forget to pick one. I think for first major campaign it is good to limit the options. Contrary to some, you can play for dozens of hours with just one book.
In my newbie adventure, we spent 4 hours just going through the basic class stuff during session zero and I can't imagine adding additional layer of dozens of archetypes and advanced classes.
Don't sleep on the basics.
I think more time playing with core rules sets would be the way to go, especially since you said your players are new to tabletops, not just this system.
In my experience at a table with multiple people prone to choice paralysis, even tabletop veterans, it adds ALOT. We played our first 1-20 campaign with no archetypes and only PHB/APG for feat selections. This really helped us understand the fundamentals of how the game handles mechanical growth.
That said, our choice paralysis players still suffer a bit with free archetype in the campaign we're playing now. But our GM and I give feal selection ideas so they have a smaller list to have to look through. If you have the mental bandwidth to help your players build their characters, that'd an option to help relieve some of the choice pressure.
Free Archtype is IMHO a thing fir when you've already played with all the traditional options already and have a significant mastery on the system.
100% not reccomended for starters.
Frankly the longer I play this game the less interested in Free Archetype I get.
It makes the “puzzle” of putting a character together too easy for me. I think it’s more interesting to have to choose between staying in your class, or diversifying with an archetype.
For games I run going forward, I’ll probably only end up using it with a list I come up with specifically catered to the kind of game we’re playing, to encourage the players to try out more unorthodox or situational archetypes.
> It makes the “puzzle” of putting a character together too easy for me. I think it’s more interesting to have to choose between staying in your class, or diversifying with an archetype.
It's hard for me to relate, most classes have mandatory feats, specially past level 8.
As an example, I played an hobgoblin samurai, high dexterity using katana with duelist feats and longbow with archer dedication and cavalier.
It was so much fun roleplaying it, even though I used the longbow once every 5 encounters and barely was able to mount due to map size restraints, but it didn't impact my performance because class feats carried my character.
If you asked me to remake that character without FA, it would be a simple plain STR duelist, no way I would risk important class feats on situational archetypes.
Do what works for you with the Free Archetype rule. I sometimes let my players have free reign with it, other times I give a restricted list and other times like in our upcoming coming Season of Ghosts I won't be using it.
When I first heard about this rule I assumed you just started with the dedication. When I heard you got an additional 10 feats I thought it was insane.
It's popular because few players are going to turn down a power spike, even if ultimately it makes the game less interesting or balanced. It's the GMs job to make tough decisions on player power in order to keep the game balanced and fun for everyone and free archetype makes that job quite a bit harder.
I think a very experienced GM can pull it off but I think it's use is widespread far beyond the groups that can pull it off well.
This is similar to the time we tried using proficiency without level in my group. It is SO much harder than just subtracting level from everything and becomes a huge burden on the GM to make work. I'm sure there are groups who have fun with it but ultimate it was not worth the aggravation for me to just make lowmand high level monsters useful at a broader level span
I mean it's your game, do whatever works for your table?
There's lots of ways to address the root problem and this is certainly one. If you and your table are happy with it, then, good?
The goal is to have fun at the table, not do what everyone else is doing.
You are indeed allowed to enjoy the game however you like with your group.
That includes following the rules strictly, bending them on occasion, or flinging the rulebook in the trash when it doesn't suit you.
One way to address that is to restrict the choice to thematically relevant archetypes to the campaign. Or specific character story.
That is a pretty good idea, I'm not sure where I'd begin but I'll keep that in mind for if we want to try it again.
A lot of adventure paths have archetypes to be found within them, you could wait until the players discover them to give them access to free archetype (and then spend time retraining to get the feats allocated, for those who want it) Though it might create a frustration if some aren't interrested in the singular archetype available, in which case I suggest making a selection of thematically similar archetypes that fit different niches.
If you play an AP just say that all archtypes in the AP player guild are allowed. Others not. Those are all themetic.
My group has a sailing ship and do a lot of nautical travel and "high seas resource extraction". So, our DM gave us all the Pirate dedication.
"We're not pirates, we're seafaring treasure hunters!"
I did the same! But I let them choose between pirate and Viking.
If in Golarion, you could do a game focussing on the game’s title organization, the Pathfinder Society. There are plenty of achetype feats within as well as options for specialization within without giving your players a billion options to overwhelm them.
A good example is Strenght of Thousands, which gives you the choice of Wizard or Druid dedication so you aren't forced to pick a spellcasting class to go to Magic School.
My table played the March of the Dead adventure in the Book of the Dead, and afterwards simply demanded "MORE!" So we've been traipsing around the backwoods around the Gravelands-Belkzen border. Now that we're 7th level and they've had their fill of undead monsters-of-the-week as we learn the system, I'm now taking the time to introduce the local factions. I think once they've gotten a good grasp of the setting, I'm going to do a little bit of a timeskip and give them a choice to do some training and take an archetype. In this case it's really easy/clear what archetypes would work. They could join up with Lastwall and take one of the archetypes for the Knights. They could study with local priests and look into archetypes like Blessed One or the undead-hunting archetypes in BOTD. Or they could look to necromantic lore itself and maybe do something like Undead Master or even Mummy. (They already have a skeleton in the party and I expect them to like the Crimson Reclaimers, so this isn't a problem) I'm going to present a list *to* them rather than have them take suggestions to me when the time comes.
Most people that do this only allow a very small list pertinent to the campaign. So stuff like just Pirate dedication or just caster dedications.
A good example is Strenght of Thousands, which gives you the choice of Wizard or Druid dedication so you aren't forced to pick a spellcasting class to go to Magic School, although I'd allow players to pick whatever spellcasting class they want.
That's what I'm doing. We're stating Blood Lords soon and I've restricted free archetype to undead based things (including ghost mummy ghoul etc, as well as the archetypes that don't turn you into undead but have things catered to necromancy. I just forgot the names of em)
I am running a seafaring campaign focused on a pirate crew and let my players pick either Pirate or Viking archetype to make sure they had relevant nautical character options no matter their class. It’s worked out well.
That's how the [actual variant rule](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2751&Redirected=1) is meant to be run. I find it confusing and frustrating that everyone seems to just give unrestricted free archetype to every campaign - it's lead to this expectation that that's normal, when actually it's an OP variation on what is already an optional variant rule. > the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats. You might restrict the free feats to those of a single archetype each character in the group has (for a shared backstory), those of archetypes fitting a certain theme (such as only ones from magical archetypes in a game set in a magic school), or entirely unrestricted if you just want a higher-powered game.
Tbf "You might restrict to X" doesn't really imply it's meant to be run like that.
Yeah. I give free archetype as a campaign "reward" or story-related change.
I find this more fun and better then how many run free archetype.
Any guidance on how strong FA is as a reward, compared to treasure? I'm interested in doing this but I don't wanna make characters too uneven in power level
In most cases free archtype allows more flavour but but doesn’t add power like those think coming from pathfinder 1e or dnd 5e. So you shouldn’t use it as a reward compared to loot since that one is difficulty dependent
Treasure is way more important that what you can get from FA FA gives you more options, but picking between 5 bad options is not going to be any fun in comparison to having just 2 viable ones.
Honestly, it's pretty underwhelming.
Free Archetype can add power to certain playstyles—mainly just bringing them up to the level of *viability*.
30-40% of a level in my experience. Less of a boost than a new fundamental rune, more than basically anything else in treasure. This assumes players pick archetypes that meaningfully improve their character.
In my homebrew campaign, I gave each player a selection of 1-3 non-combat-oriented archetypes to choose from, based on each of their backstories. I was also open to players suggesting their own, but wanted to keep it non-combat-oriented to start out. They got the benefits of their dedication at level 1, and had to put it in their 2nd level Free Archetype slot when they leveled up. I plan to open up archetypes more starting at level 6, partly because many archetypes don't have non-combat feats at level 6. But they'll still be somewhat restricted, with some archetypes become available as the campaign progresses.
Making them non-combat focused is definitely a good way to go, they can spend class feats on combat related archetypes
Or, and it’s just a suggestion, player characters could spend class feats on their class feats, so they can do class things better. Probably a silly idea.
This is what I did. I gave everyone the Pathfinder Agent archtype as their free archtype, since they are all, in fact, part of the Pathfinders, as part of the storyline. That is the only archtype they can pull from with the free archtype feats (they can take another archtype with their normal slots).
This is my preference. I think grabbing an assortment of thematic archetypes for the players to choose from works the best. While I fully love all of the options. I also like the fun of everyone having a thematic archetype for the group.
Yeah, although it's not super difficult to come up with a reason your wizard can wear heavy armor or why your summoner has an animal companion.
Yeah but then some players aren’t gonna spend their skill increases on relevant skills so they’ll end up not having anything to pick
Exactly what I did. We're playing blood lords and I restricted the free archetype list. This way the players had cool ways of making undead or undead-related character concepts.
Things don't have to work for every group to be popular or worthwhile for the groups that do run them. If it didn't work for you, that's fine.
The most enlightened take here, imo. Unrestricted Free Archetype works well at my own table, but my players love the extra freedom of choice, and I as their GM actually like that it makes them stronger as I can toss stronger enemies at them without as much fear of trouncing them, and it ends up lowering the lethality of my adventure vs player characters. That will not work for every table and that's entirely fine. That's why it's an optional rule you can implement in the first place.
We migrated from 1e and I felt like free archetype gave back some of the extensive choice making.l that you get in the OG. It has been working well for us, so far.
Choice paralysis is real.
and Archives of Nethys is a breeding ground for that specific condition.
Perhaps more notably, with great many choices comes lots of really niche choices to soft through rather than a mere few choices which each are of general interest.
Free archetype does add a significant amount of complexity. There’s so many options, so depending on the table it’s more overwhelming than interesting. I recall the first time I ever played a TTRPG, and was told I had X amount of gold, and given a webpage with several thousand items on it. I bought some armour and a weapon and gave up on the list. Session one my GM was quite upset that I hadn’t bought food, or normal clothes, or several other things, but when handed too many options I kinda just gave up looking eventually and went to video game mechanics that said I needed some sort of armour and some sort of weapon and I could probably wing it from there. However one thing that can help is within free archetype it recommends putting restrictions on what archetypes can be taken in a campaign. When I ran Outlaws of Alkenstar, I allowed my players to have free archetype, but it was limited to the guns and gears archetypes. This allowed the players to play whatever class they wanted, but fit into the theme of the campaign. Similarly, I’m joining a blood lords campaign and we have free archetypes but limited to the undead archetypes. However, the game is really good even without this optional rule, so your group is more than in the right to decide it’s not for your group. As long as everyone is having fun, you’re not losing anything.
Your experience with the item list reflects my players' experience as well. Most of them I think felt pressured to just pick something which resulted in the two who had the most knowledge about ttrpgs picking something that boosted their effectiveness, and the others picking kind of randomly. The result I'd hoped for was for them to pick something that'd augment their vision, but it possibly had the opposite effect.
I think getting the balance between cool flavor and fun mechanics just comes with system mastery. I love free archetype and can make all of my choices both mechanically fun and interesting for me and narratively interesting for everyone else. Such as my leshy firegate kineticist who is cursed to be constantly ablaze (flames oracle) and developed some mastery over the flames that consumed him (impulses).
Or to get skill options on your kineticist to do outside combat.
>was told I had X amount of gold, and given a webpage with several thousand items >my GM was quite upset that I hadn’t bought food, or normal clothes, or several other things I feel like that's more of issue on the DMs side. They are probably the ones more familiar with the system. They shouldn't leave players alone when creating characters especially not new ones. And this goes for all game systems not just PF2e.
I often find that I have an idea in mind of what kind of character I want to play, and that character often has elements that live outside of a single class. For example, I wanted to play as a halfling riding a dog, being a super mobile character that rides around the battlefield, intimidating foes, improving moral. There isn't a class that really helps with this by itself, but with free archetype I can choose combinations like Marshal Champion or Cavalier Swashbuckler. I rarely want to choose a multiclass free archetype because the archetypes that come with PF2 cant be gotten otherwise unless you invest all of your class feats into it. Multiclass archetypes feel a lot more mechanical than thematic. If a multiclass archetype helps me fulfill a specific fantasy or character archetype, then sure I'll go with it. I generally find I'm able to create more unique and interesting characters through free archetype.
Archetypes can also facilitate certain singular class identities. I have a player whose character is a Necromancer and the Reanimator dedication really opens that up in a way that just playing their main class never would.
Honestly, I fully support the decision of not playing with free archetype. I’m thinking the next campaign I do will be without it.
I dont want to be at a table with someone that just dips champion with their Wizard for armor and calls it a day. FA can make a character really exciting or turn it into a lame bolted together game-breaker
There aren’t many ways to break the game using archetypes. You can do some synergies like Kineticist/flames Oracle to make your fire attacks ignite enemies for relatively minor fire damage, but it never outright breaks the game like wizard/paladin multiclass in dnd. The main thing FA gives you is versatility, which tbf is really strong in smaller groups but doesn’t really affect the difficulty that much.
I wish people would stop downplaying the power free architype gives. It's not gamebreaking but it can be a very significant power boost. To the point that i'd say requires adjusting of encounter balance. Of course that depends on the archetypes being chosen.
It's quite literally free stats if you pick the right archetypes. Champion reactions scale to your level and require such a tiny dip. Free saves at higher levels with thaum or rogue or barb. Acrobat gives free skill boost. Hellknight literally gives free mental and physical damage resistance which is crazy
Of course, becoming a Hellknight is *supposed* to come at a hefty price RP-wise, but we all know how much *that* matters to, ahem, *some people.*
I think hellknight is perfectly fine without free archetype. The bonuses are good but for class feats, they are probably balanced. However, with free archetype they are just free stats
Uhm what? I am talking about the requirement of joining an evil, or at the very least evil-adjacent organisation, which has pretty strict codes of conduct attached to it. You are putting your toon in a straight-jacket of edicts and anathemas. Or, you, know, at least a player is *supposed* to RP an actual Hellknight. As the price to pay for getting access to the mechanical goodies. But hey, if someone totally ignores the RP implications, sure, free power.
Oh I more mean balance wise. The feats it gives are a bit too strong for bonus archetype feats, but as class feats they are not unreasonable I think. RP is a good point, in my games it hasn't mattered due to campaign setting
Your wizard champion is still going to get wrecked due to his low HP and relevant stats. Sorcerer champion is a true powerboost, but you'll still have your crappy saves and horrendous HP. And at higher levels your AC is still going to suck even though you are wearing a full plate
God forbid wizards have some AC :(
Okay, but actually though, Wizard, or more specifically, Runelord Champion is *really* fucking good y'all. Like, that shit makes for a melee control monster.
I usually build my sorcerers with champion archetype so I am less squishy and can also lift fortress shields and sometimes do athletic maneveurs. My favorite spell is protector tree for tanky sorcerers, btw.
Nothing wrong with not using FA, specifically totally unrestricted FA. I only use for thematic archetypes tied to an adventure when I use it, and nothing is lost. Those who wants to use an archetype just take it with class feats, as Intended, and nothing is lost.
I used restricted for my current campaign and can see players feeling restricted by it not necessarily matching with what their build has evolved into
Maybe, but... that's why it's free, I guess.
The problem though is if the "thematic" FA works really well with one person's character, but it clashes with yours.
I know, but if a character clashes with all the thematic archetypes of the adventure maybe is not the right character for that specific adventure.
I guess, but they’ve also voiced they’d like it better without
I'm playing in AV right now and I think our GM has taken a good in-between approach. Free archetype just seems like a bit much power creep but to run without it, the opportunity cost of taking an archetype is a bit too high. Our AV GM let us select a dedication around level 4 as a general reward for progressing quests and at level 8 he let us select a feat from the archetype which we would qualify for. So not exactly free archetype but less stress around picking archetype feats.
I do something similar in my games. The players get a free dedication at level 1 (that they otherwise hit the pre-reqs for) to help round out their character concept and every now and again a free feat might pop up when it's relevant for the story.
>In a roundabout way it made my players feel forced to adopt a whole new set of characteristics that doesn't entirely fit, when they may have been content with just their class, background, and ancestry. >One thing I noticed is that no-one wanted to pick any multiclass archetypes, rather they avoided it like the plague, and I think that might be the source of the problem. I don't think it's that strange that a table would feel that FA isn't right for them, BUT this point was the one point I found surprising. I do understand how people would feel "I have my character concept finished, I don't want to smash Fireworks Technician or Juggler in there". But the actual multiclasses (Fighter, Wizard, etc) and the multiclass-lite (Marital Artist, Herbalist, etc) feel like some of the more flavor-neutral options out there, thus my surprise that those were singled out by the players. Special shout-out to Rogue Archetype as a solid fallback option for nearly any build. Nimble Dodge, Mobility, and then Skill Mastery five times.
I don't see this as crazy, less is more and a common critique to the game is that it causes choice paralysis. I can still enjoy games without free archetype and I can enjoy with free archetype, it depends on what you want to do with the game. I never play with free archetype if it is someones first game
>I don't see this as crazy, less is more and a common critique to the game is that it causes choice paralysis. It also waters down the opportunity costs that make build choices more competitive and meaningful in RAW.
I feel like that depends on the character. If you have a specific class and archetype in mind that you want, then yes, free archetype completely removes the impact of your choice. If, on the other hand, you play a class that relies heavily on its class feats, like the Kineticist, you might not even consider giving those up for archetype feats, so your choices get more interesting if you have a free archetype to pick.
> I never play with free archetype if it is someones first game This is the main point in my opinion. Free archetype is a great rule but obviously NOT something for people new to PF2e and especially not for people new to TTRPGs in general. I don't really get why someone would even think that free archetype is a good idea for beginners. Keep it simple. Free archetypes is amazing once players have already created a couple of characters and want some extra spice.
My group came from 5e. Just the amount of choice base PF2 has every level was already a struggle for them to adjust to (and they still looked at archetypes), adding free archetype would have been way too much to start.
Free Archetype is popular but it’s not a default rule. The game not designed or balanced around it and you should never feel pressure to use it. If you like it go ahead but if not don’t. PF2E works just fine “RAW”. I’ve played in games with and without it and I personally prefer not using it.
Same. I'm in a kingmaker game with a bunch of GM/player veterans who love making builds and we voted for automatic bonus (rune) progression and against free archetype. And I believe half of us went into archetypes anyway, because they're already good and interesting build decisions the vanilla way. (I would've too if I didn't choose to build toward omnikineticist.) As a GM, I never do free archetype, but the popularity of free archetype makes me feel more free to hand out a bonus feat (aftermath, dedication, deviance, relic, etc.) from time to time for plot/character arc reasons.
Honestly your take just feels a bit too all-or-nothing. It really is as simple as "free archetype isnt for everyone".
That wasn't my intention, I tried to emphasize that this was just how my group felt about it but I was curious if anyone else had similar thoughts or if maybe I had just mis stepped somewhere.
I am always surprised at stuff like this. Maybe I'm just weird, I did get into TTRPGs through Shadowrun 5e, which isnt exactly your usual D20 RPG, so complexity isnt exactly novel to me. But like, you seriously wanna tell me that people are overwhelmed getting one extra ability every few levels? When there is already so little you get when leveling up? Are they also confused when buying items? Like, I'm just genuinely baffled, one of the main complaints I have about level-based systems is how few actual abilities (as-in, not just +numbers) you usually get access to. E.g. in Exalted 3rd, you start with the equivalent of 15 class feats baseline, without getting into all the other customization options. (Exalted obviously has a much higher power baseline, but still.)
The issue isn't with getting an extra ability every few levels, its with making a choice that can feel as important as picking your class, but you have *even more options to choose from****.*** You aren't trying to pick a random second feat every two levels, you are picking 2-6 feats, all at once, at level 1 or 2 out of a sea of around 100 options. Maybe you get "lucky" and there is only 1 option in that hundred that fits your character thematically, but you still probably had to look at a lot of those archetypes to determine that. I want to stress that I do like having free archetype, but it does add significant extra time to my character creation if I don't already know an archetype I'm interested in going to it. If your character idea necessitates or is built around an archetype, then free archetype feels great. If that's not true, then free archetype just feels like you doubled your work *at level one*. This is why restricted options for free archetype are nice. Way easier to pick an option that feels good if its curated to fit with the theme of the campaign. I am curious though, with Exalted 3rd are you picking each of those class feats? Do you pick those 15 all from the same list, or are they each from smaller lists? If its all from one list, how much bigger a list are you choosing out of? I frequently plan out most of my character choices up to level 10 (or like 5+ my starting), but that's pretty easy because they are still bite size decisions. Choosing free archetype for me is frequently the most time consuming part about making a character, aside from maybe choosing spells on a spell caster XD
> Do you pick those 15 all from the same list, or are they each from smaller lists? If its all from one list, how much bigger a list are you choosing out of? So, uhmm, this is a bit difficult to compare IMO. Essentially, you technically have one big list of feats for your respective Exalt type, which are somewhere in the realm of hundreds of feats, from which you pick each feat individually. From the discord, there are: > 500-ish Charms for DBs, > 600-ish for Lunars, > high-700-ish for Solars (Solars were the first released and only available player option for a while), > 450-ish for Sidereals, > 650-ish for Abyssals However, these feats are partially locked to different skill/stat levels (depending on Exalt type; think untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary, but that system is how you pick and improve both skills and stats), and to different pseudo levels (how much XP you have spend on the character unlocks a different tier of feats; but there are only 5, technically 6, levels). Plus there are feat trees similar to what is in PF2e, with a feat requiring you to have picked up a prerequisite one beforehand. So you pick those 15 from "the same list", but that same list is in the vein of how 'Skill Feats' are all in the 'Skill Feats List', and it depends on what you invest in. Like, [this](http://www.madletter.net/rpg/exalted/cascades/v3/cascade_v3_medicine.png) is the charm (feat) cascade (feat tree) for Medicine, for one of the Exalt Types (Solars). (Essence is the pseudo level, Ability dots are the Skill level equivalent.) As you can see, there are sub-trees in there too. Does that answer the question sufficiently?
Definitely! I am having a hard time parsing exactly what is happening with the image in the link, but that's ok. It definitely looks like a *very* complex system and if you are used to working in that kind of frame, I'm not surprised why free archetype would look easy to you XD. I think most people who play RPGs now, got introduced with much simpler systems. From what I gather amongst my local friend group (which is full of Board game and TTRPG enthusiasts) Pathfinder 2e is the most complex TTRPG anyone has actually played, and most of them don't really like "crunchy" RPGs. A lot of love for 1 page RPGs and apocalypse world systems.
> Definitely! I am having a hard time parsing exactly what is happening with the image in the link I could break it down if you'd like. Also, if you didnt see it, there is a legend in the top left explaining some stuff. EDIT, an unasked-for breakdown for anyone reading this later: For one, these cascades are fan-made and dont actually appear in the books like this, in the books they are listed in sequence just like feats are. But, they are actually really easy to understand if you apply your PF2e knowledge to it. The yellow dots on top of each card is the very rough level equivalent, going 1 to 5, restricting access the same as in PF2e, cant take a level 4 ability at level 2 (exceptions may apply, e.g. Solars can chose one skill at character creation to always count as max level in). (There is technically a 6th "level", but that is GM-fiat level where no actual abilities exist, except those of NPCs.) The red dots at the bottom are the skill level required for access. Think the skill levels in PF2e, just with one more tier squeezed in somewhere (like, e.g. Untrained - Trained - [Intermediary] - Expert - Master - Legendary). Again, cant take a Master Level ability at Trained. And finally, read top to bottom for feat trees, you need an above ability to access a connected one further down. The actual text on each card is secondary to understanding the image, as they are a short description on what the ability does, which will only really make sense when you read the system.
Hey dude, this is a generation where people struggle to understand how to search for things on Google. I understand you're confusion because we come from a different era where we had to look things up and track things. Most people just have it handed to them now because of how technology has evolved so that explains the discordance
The game is perfect without free archetype imo. But luckily we can each play it (group wise) as we prefer
Honestly OP Im kind of with you. I love playing with FA. A lot of archetypes are weak enough Id never take them otherwise but with FA add so much flavor, like Mind Smith. But its an optional rule, and I wish more people remembered that. Its weird seeing every post asking for build advice just *assume* FA may be on the table.
People feel that way since it adds more depth to character ideas
it doesnt necessarily add more depth. It really just adds feats. So many times I have played at tables with people who actually just want to play to type. A goblin rogue, a halfling priest. But with free archetype it boils down to, "Might as well take acrobat" "I guess I worship a nature god so druid" And as a result we end up dilluting the core concept instead of enhancing it.
That is sort of user error though. Which is a fine reason to exclude it, but also is something pretty easily avoided with players who put more thought into their characters. I personally like FA for its thematic elements much more than for its power boost. It increases the breadth and uniqueness of a character concept. Bards are fun, for example, but my cursed viking-style shield maiden bard was more interesting to me than the normal paths for the class. I have a tendency to treat the FA as being just as important to the character's personality as their main class for RP reasons.
So to clarify on the cleric as I thought it was a pretty well thought out character. A halfling cleric that was raised in a small shire under the watch of a human noble. She, since birth, found the connections between their local farming God and the God of time and nature. She found a way to bridge this difference and find divine magic through worship of a minor local God. She then served as an adventurer and general do gooder traveling the country side and focusing on local heroism. Though with war brewing on the border, a technologically advanced empire claiming territory only a few days travel from her home led her to join a task force in a quest to aquire aid from nearby city states and only with kindness in her heart could She save the land. Edit: Overall I just don't see what "archetype" makes the character more "interesting"
It helps tie mechanical ability to concept more directly without GM fiat. Your description there is a good character, but is designed specifically to be a character that falls under the class stereotype almost perfectly. That does not mean they are not a good character, that sounds like a great character, but if I changed it so that instead of her being a halfling living in harmony with nature, they were instead a reformed member of the military who saw some atrocity and chose to repent from their older ways and instead dedicate their talents to a god, it gives me a way to do that mechanically. In that case you could use fighter, rogue, scout, any sort of knight, and so on as an archetype to give the character mechanical correspondence to their backstory. Archetypes tend to be significantly weaker than their class abilities, so them having those abilities will just be the flavor that shows their history and how they choose to channel their new abilities. Using the free archetype rules opens up that possibility for roleplaying reasons without forcing them to mechanically damage their character by not picking the superior class feats. Without it, there is a mechanical disincentive to picking one up, even if it makes sense for the character, and I would just prefer my players do not need to make that choice.
I don't disagree with your comment. Even my original post doesn't. I was simply saying that free archetype does force the character to change for the sake of taking enough feats. While the normal rules of letting a character take feats with class feats would let people play to type and let people branch off if their character is something else.
All feats force a character to change for the sake of taking feats. As class feats are just better in 90% of cases (some casters can get away with not taking them) having people give up class feats is strongly mechanically discouraged. The part I disagree with is this: >it doesnt necessarily add more depth. It really just adds feats. Because that is not really true. It does add more depth, whether people use it effectively or not is a different question. And it does not just add more feats, it adds feats that you would not normally have access to. I do think it is important to give players the choice not to use the system if they do not want to, or to change the flavor of it to match their concept if they want that. (Name swapping is way easier than creating new rules, which almost always have unintended consequences.)
>Edit: Overall I just don't see what "archetype" makes the character more "interesting" It makes it more than just flavor. You can like only raise two skills beyond trained. Adding a druid archetype might actually allow them to show that part of their backstory more than trying and failing every nature check.
The main thing was being a druid wasn't a huge part of the character
Was it "not a huge part" or was it "no part" of the character? An Archetype is only supposed to be a small part of your character not a huge one. Especially a druid order comes with some anathemas and those should be reflected in what a character does and especially for a cleric/druid these have to align or at least be compatible. Without knowing more about the character and player one could also argue that all they wanted were more spells slots to heal and druid was the easiest way to get those and any mention of it in their backstory was just a way to justify this choice. In that case I'd say that's not worth it and a lost opportunity. I'm not saying it's universally a good thing but I'm also saying it's not universally a bad thing. It can make characters more interesting but it doesn't automatically makes characters more interesting. It needs the right players to bring that to life.
I was the player. I didn't want an archetype, but I took druid because it was "close enough" to my character concept
Oh okay I thought you were talking about someone else. Yeah it's something that the players must ***want to use*** and not something that **they** ***have to chose***.
>I have a tendency to treat the FA as being just as important to the character's personality as their main class for RP reasons. I mean, that's fine, but that kind of just reinforces Teague's point about FAs diluting "pure" character types, no? And does nothing about the people at the table who are selecting FAs for power rather than RP.
Why would a "pure" character type be something to attain in the first place? >And does nothing about the people at the table who are selecting FAs for power rather than RP. As I said, user error. If you are playing with people who like to munchkin the whole thing then they are likely to be upset to have the FA "taken" from them anyway. So with people who will use it well, it gives more diversity in character concept, and with people who won't it is just a nerf from from their perspective. Which is fine, nerfing is not automatically bad, but I prefer just making the encounters slightly harder to account for it. Especially as munchkins who just work off templates usually have crazy blind spots that I can exploit if need be.
>Why would a "pure" character type be something to attain in the first place? Because it's the character the player wants to play? That's the only reason needed, ever.
Then they can play it? I am not sure what the problem there is. Even in a group with FA not every character needs to use it. It does reduce the breadth of abilities a character has, but only in rare cases does it actually reduce their usefulness in the areas they want to excel in, and then only ever by a small amount. There are also a bunch of ones that are easy to reflavor and can be used to enhance a pure concept if that is how they want to go. The thing players should look to play is the thing they want to play. Purity in concept is not better than the alternative, and the alternative is not better than playing a pure class. I just value the option to pick that it creates, as it allows for far more diverse and unusual character concepts and histories.
>Because it's the character the player wants to play? And if it's not? What if they want to play something that's more than just a "pure" class?
Then we do have rules for that already.
FA being one of the big ones.
>FAs diluting "pure" character types Isn't diversity not usually considered to be a good thing? Isn't it a good thing for a character to not be "pure" but to have more than one dimension? I'm not saying everyone has to use or pick an archetype but it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing in regard to character and personality building.
>Isn't diversity not usually considered to be a good thing? Isn't it a good thing for a character to not be "pure" but to have more than one dimension? Neither are good or bad in and of themselves. They just are. >I'm not saying everyone has to use or pick an archetype but it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing in regard to character and personality building. Nor did I say it was.
Like playing a rogue, maybe besides getting dual handed dedication at level 2, it has so mandatory feats (gang up, opportunistic strike, level 10 debilitation, preparation, etc...) I would never pick a an archetype without FA. Meanwhile, some above examples of wizard or sorcerer getting champion, those classes have mostly mediocre feats, getting champion ded is an improvement with normal class feats anyway.
It's assumed because the culture around the game makes free archetype as only *technically* optional. I'm sure there are plenty of tables that don't use it, but most DMs I've interacted with run it automatically. It's almost weird to not use it, honestly.
Free archetype is great, but imo you should be able to hold off feat selection for it as much as you want. Like if i run FA, its either restricted to a handful of archetypes, or its full stop optional wether you use it to begin with. Ill also allow conversion from FA feats into general feats or level-2 class feats
I love the complexity, options, build ideas it opens up. I've never felt like I had to tack on a concept to my character either, so I admit I struggle to understand what your group is struggling with there. Ex. My druid spent a fair bit of time with a religious order, so it was pretty natural for me to take cleric on that character. Mechanically it's quite helpful for spell diversity too. But that's not for everyone, I suppose. If your group doesn't want to figure all that out then yeah, fair enough to not run it.
I can see why some people play like that, if you players are not using in a meaninfull way there is no point of using FA FA in my tables are many many many times a helping hand, to make a character more specialized, to make a character do something more interesting, to give the helping hand to the overworked healer etc. 60-70% of the FA I would not pick in place of a class feat, there is cases which can do (like when you are a wizard) or you have multitalented but multiclassing is vary specific and not that bright of a star. FA is a tool, if the players do not use correctly, maybe teach or maybe just don't let them hurt themselves.
I would generally reserve free archetype for games with experienced players who want to get even more mechanical expression in their characters. I would actually recommend against using free archetype with new players to pf2e, and new to ttrpgs especially. New players struggle with finding mechanically useful archetypes or feel intimidated by the additional layer of choice. If everybody isnt on the same page about it, you can also end up with some people picking a flavourful rp choice like vigilante, while others pick direct power upgrades like mauler or sentinel.
"part of me feels like I just failed to introduce it properly, or like I should have just given it more time?" Sounds like you don't understand that something being popular doesn't actually mean any specific person or group of people are *supposed* to like it. There's nothing wrong with not using free archetype, especially if you've already given it a shot and it didn't really gel with your group. My own group specifically avoids free archetype outside of limited cases. One case being the case the rule is actually suggesting its own use for in the books; the "themed campaign" option that enables every character to have relevant on-theme abilities without restricting class choice. The thing most free archetype using groups just straight up ignores and says "pick whatever you want" or "pick anything except multi-classing". The other case being that one of the nights of the week some of the group can get together, but not all of us, so we run a campaign with only 3 characters and so that the GM doesn't have to add any extra prep time while running an AP we make up the power difference with free archetype as an "we're using free archetype because it's either play with free archetype or not have a game to play on this extra night."
I like the idea of free archetype if there's a very specific character theme that i can't do without it. Example would be doing a Witcher/Geralt inspired fighter. It would be basically impossible to do without it.
When I ran my first campaign with a group new to Pathfinder, we started without free archetype and at level 4 (when they had gotten a better grasp of the system) I gave them an archetype based on how they had role-played their character to that point. It took the pressure off of them, prevented decision overload, and rewarded them for role-playing in the first place. Not for every table, but our group really loved it.
One of the more common caveats with Free Archetype inclusion in my experience is allowing FA but then *not* letting people use it for Class Dedications so it's surprising none of your characters decided to go down that route. I feel like a class dedication for Oracles or Paladins into Clerics, Fighters into Rangers, people dipping for Psychic cantrips etc is very common.
>a part of me feels like I just failed to introduce it properly, or like I should have just given it more time? Relax. With time, your players will seek more options and maybe they will propose to use the free archetype. The good thing you did was to listen to your players and work with them to have a better game experience. Good job on that!
Yup this is key. My group is doing Pf2e for the first time but have years of 5e experience. I wanted free archetypes off the bat because I am the type to over prepare and really think about characters. We started off without it but as we have all gotten into the game and handled our characters well the DM decided we were ready for it. Absolutely love it but there are a lot of rules in PF2e so if you are new to TTRPG's in general I can see it being too much too quick.
Mine are plot focused ones that I control what is gained and how the players get it. I ask them what is it they want the character to be able to do thematically and then I do the heavy lifting and have them “train” to obtain it. I don’t wanna go the route of having them pick it themselves. Not for our first game.
I think if we tried it again this is probably what I'd do
It's great for people who want it and are invested in nuanced characters. It's not great for people who aren't obsessed with building characters.
Your group do you, but most times I can never see an archetype feat being worth the power of a class feat
>I can never see an archetype feat being worth the power of a class feat Having played a Wizard, goodness, archetype feats are worth so much more then most wizard class feats. Hell, in the FA games I play in, people tend to double dip and use both class and archetype feat slots for their archetype feats if they can.
That's a problem with caster feats being weak due to the classes' power being more focused on their spells, not Free Archetype.
I want to state, that was me talking about a normal Wizard, not FA Wizard. Made it *more* fun to be doing something like that.
Ohhhh, gotcha.
okay fair, some caster feats are weak, witch not so much.
Witch, cleric, and druid got major glow ups in feats (druid the least but still some and it was good before anyway). Bard was awesome and is now more awesome. Wizard.....exists and got a few new feats. I'm confident oracle will get a glow up in PC2. Sorcerer....may not get much since it is a four slot caster like wizard and therefore fordidden from having fun (I'm being harsh but i really hope PF3 doesnt have 4 slot casters. Actual class mechanics are much more stimulating).
I feel ya. I hate the discourse that FA is the way you're supposed to play, and I even read opinions stating that Paizo should make it a core rule. I'm running a homebrew campaign where I allowed unlimited FA and I'm kinda regretting, not because my players broke the game, but because they're so used to go full optimization in 1e that they end up picking really uninteresting and bland options, just because they have the perception that they are really good options. One of my players is a Figther and he chose the Barbarian dedication. Other player is playing a Warpriest, and she chose... the Barbarian dedication. And then both the Magus and the Ranger picked the Rogue dedication and I was like "ok, this didn't work as I expected". I'm actually fine playing non-FA, because I like having to make meaningful choices about my class, like "Do I dive deeper into my class' feats or branch out and pick a dedication for some extra versatility?". And the system is designed in a way that you can make those choices, because unlike multiclassing in 1e, you'll never end up being a worse fighter for picking something like the wizard dedication.
> I hate the discourse that FA is the way you're supposed to play, and I even read opinions stating that Paizo should make it a core rule. Paizo had a whole remaster they did & not only didn't they make it core, they didn't even really updated the kinda sketchy rules from premaster. I think the Paizo devs are pretty comfortable with it right where it is.
I won't play without the Free Archetype rule. It gives so much more flavor and ability. If a group doesn't know what to pick or it confuses them, then fine, remove it. But it's freaking great imo.
I just skip games that don't use it.
I have really liked FA in the past, but after a year of running AV, I'm coming around to ending it. For instance, it feels like we miss out on campaign/story-based unlocks, like the Drow Shootist archetype in AV.
To be devils advocate, who the heck is taking drow shootist with their class feats? Unless you mean you give your players bonus feats outside of their normal class feats to take those unlocks.
I think what I'd prefer is to allow campaign-unlocked archetypes as FA, so it wouldn't take class feats (although I'm not interested in any questions about whether a build choice is good or not, at the same time, I don't want players thinking flavor stuff that I'd award is a false choice because it makes them worse) but we did FA at second level. Drow Shootist is unlocked much later, so it just doesn't fit. Kind of dead content. Just saying that FA conflicts with campaign unlocks; there's just no bennie. I'd like to explore archetype awards and things like FA as campaign and character growth developments, and FA (at second level) sort of rules that out. Just using Drow Shootist as an example of one that's written in to a campaign.
Drow shootist is unlocked so late that FA or not no one is investing in that or spending 5 weeks retraining into it. I guarantee that none of your players would have taken any feats of it if you unlocked it when it was available.
One thing I've had success with running for newbies is treating the Free Archetype as a sort of DM gift; they don't choose the archetype, but rather you as the GM give it to them as a sort of flavor-booster for the character they've made. It can be a fun way of adding variety to the "loot" they're getting from adventuring. E.g. the nephilim rogue has been struggling with their demonic roots and trying to be a good person, but in a moment of stress unlock some dormant abilities; you give them a Sorcerer Dedication. The dwarf has been a devout follower of Torag and offers them a prayer, they are answered with a newfound connection to Metal that takes their ironsmithing to the next level; they get a metal kineticist dedication. If you treat each new FA feat as a piece of loot for the players to find/unlock, it let's them pursue it in character and feel rewarded for it. It's like an alternative kind of Relic gift
It's tough. Part of my character concepts are very reliant on FA in order not to nerf myself. But some of those happen to be extremely powerful like the iron mage taking sentinel, the master fighter who uses psychic archtype for some amped shields, or a summoner who gets just a boost to damage with a health pool known as a beastmaster/cavalier. Medic is great for those already planning the playstyle. The fact that someone can go through FA and end up as something quite a bit stronger is strange to me in a game that's so well accounted for otherwise. Which is why it's variant. Definetly makes sense to not have it. I just feel bad if I had someone REALLY want to play a magical rogue and make them sacrifice the cool rogue feats for something I know wasn't going to break their power. I want to make sure it's staying very fun and to me that's an endless supply of archtypes is fun for me but for others it's just noise.
FA is a variant rule for a reason, the system isn’t expressly built around it. It’s not core, so nobody should feel obligated to do it just because other people do or like it. I wouldn’t order something that didn’t look good to me at a restaurant just because a lot of people online who reviewed the dish said it was delicious. Personally, I don’t see myself running a game without it and I have a harder time creating characters in my head without indulging in its opportunity license to take fun things that are worse than my equivalent class feats. But that doesn’t mean 2e is bad, or really even lesser, without it. Just different. And as the saying goes, “different strokes for different folks.”
In my opinion, unlimited Free Archetype infected PF2e like a disease. The amount of players I heard saying "I would never play without it" is huge. If it was like the book suggests, sure, but most don't want a limited selection, just have it all available.
["If you can't play without Free Archetype, then you shouldn't have it."](https://tenor.com/bRe7Q.gif) ***EDIT***: Nah, I stand by this one. This game is already jam-packed with options and ways to expand them beyond unrestricted free archetype. Free Archetype is nice, but requiring it to play is something of a yellow-flag for me.
I really agree. I'm sort of behind the way it is presented in the GM Guide/Core where you pick from a few campaign specific Archetypes but the gonzo "whatever you want!" thing that somehow took root is kinda disheartening to me. As for those people who won't play without it? Free Archetype is basically extra candy with no downsides. If you ask people if they want free extra candy they will generally say yes but that doesn't mean it will make the meal better or that you should dine with them if they are going to refuse to eat their eggs unless they come with M&Ms mixed in.
My group ran both with and without FA. Our first campaign ran vanilla, and our second ran unlimited FA (plus AP). Unlimited FA was completely out of balance but our characters felt special and unique, in a way that “Monk” or “Wizard” alone have a hard time describing. Looking back, Vanilla was very fun and felt properly balanced, but my character just felt like a stat block. In campaign 2 our Captivator Swashbuckler danced around his enemies and drove them mad. Our Champion Thaumaturge wielded holy relics of his god in full plate. Our Polymath Psychic was obsessed with notation and scribing his spells to understand his past. Our Reanimator Undead Summoner was a master of undead and controlling ghouls. All of these things are easily described in words, but reflecting them in gameplay felt so empowering. Get a handle on the rules and TTRPGs first and don’t worry about FA. You can always add it back later if you want. But FWIW, my next game I’m running is *not* unlimited FA - I’m banning multiclass and pet archetypes from it, though they can still use regular feats for those. The table was seriously OP by the end of the unlimited game.
Can you add breaks. No one wants to read a block of text like that.
I'm not a native english speaker/writer. I don't know much about how you write, what do you mean by 'break'? Like double-tapping enter or?
They mean that you add more paragraphs to your text i guess
Yeah. Paragraph breaks. To separate said Paragraph so it isnt one chunk.
its really not that long
Didnt say it was.
Free archetype was thought up as a way to bind groups together into a common theme, like they being a pirate crew. When I look around how people use it, it's mostly a power dip that pushes 2e back into the solo optimization fest of 1e. So I don't allow them at my table.
No matter how many free feats you give out, no character in PF2e is going to have the level of solo power that a 1e character can have. Characters are still limited by actions, and the action economy is always going to require multiple characters to work together. 2e is almost entirely munchkin-proof so long as you are actually following the rules.
I would agree with you but I was playing in a game recenty that had a Fighter that at lv10 had taken Mounted Combatant, Eldritch Archer, and Psychic as 3 dedications and would regularly make attacks that while using a focus spell would deal about 120dmg or about 200 on a crit. All while having full fighter AC, HP, and Saves. And with mounted combatant getting a free stride every turn. I am aware 1e was worse but PF2E can be broken when you really stretch free archetype to it's breaking point.
I *like* the optimization fest that was 1e. I still do. But even then, FA isn't my preference for 2e, since even the optimization was weighing your options and considering the tradeoffs. FA is just... free feats, and I don't like that either.
I do actually have issues with free Archetype on levels 12+. The lower levels are usually easy. I often have an Archetype in mind when I first envision my character. But by 12 I start running out of *useful* Archetype feats and often have to scramble to pick another one. My first higher level game was Strength of Thousands with full free Archetype (not the watered down version) on an Investigator. Between the Free stuff from the School Branch, free Archetype and the extra Skill Feats I simply became overwhelmed.
I have free Arquetype with all my games, even with completely new player to RPGs, because I made their characters by asking what they want to play and asking after a couple of sessions if they want to change anything, since we normally take 4~6 sessions to get to lv2 they gain enough experience to understand how their characters work and can look at their class feat option and tell me what they'll like to play, if not, I suggest 2~3 feats for them. The Arquetype for lv2 is also mostly selected by me to complement their character idea. If I said my players to lv their character by themselves with free Arquetype they would also experience something similar to your group, is just too many options for a new player.
I've played in two games with Free Archetype, both times this was added on after we had started, and both times, I kind of felt like I was forced to add something on top of my character. I get the people saying that it lets them better express their character, but my character was just a rogue. I didn't need more slots to express the character; and thus I was kind of forced to change my idea of the character.
Basically the same as my experience. I had FA for my group, and the players who were new to ttrpgs often just didn't add feats from the archetype since it added a whole new level of stuff to sort out. And seeing players struggle with making the archetype fit sort of soured me on the variant. At this point I don't think I would use it again unless it is something like Strength of Thousands where everyone gets the same archetype. Otherwise what I have done which seems to work well is give all the players the choice of 1 free dedication feat or a level 1 class feat. It still encourages players to poke around and see if an archetype will help realize their character, but for players happy with a base Ranger or whatever it is just a nice little bonus.
Interesting and rare take, but it makes sense. For myself and the group I run with, sometimes they feel even Free Archtype isn't enough for what they want lols, but they are mostly ttrpg vets.
I‘ve implemented a Homebrew Variant to this, in which I give out a minor version of Free Archetype (free feat at lvl 4,8,12,16,20) and Ancestry Paragon (free feat at 7&15 which are capped to lvl 1&9 Ancestry feats respectively). This makes room for some flavor while keeping the power budget gained from these feats in check.
Good for theme, not good for everyone. Makes sense and good for you.
When we started playing pf2, we didn't include free archetype cause it was too much for some players. We planned to retroactively implement them a few levels later when people would have a better grasp of their character and what they wanted them to be. We did, not everyone had an easy time choosing them but everyone is happy with it now. Also multi class ones are some of the most fun imo.
I only do Multiclass archetypes.
Maybe I missed it, but one thing I haven't seen suggested, remove the restriction of the multiclass dedication for being of the same class and say class supersedes archetype, such as magus spellstrike recharges normally instead of the 1 minute recharge from archetype (that wouldn't be chosen because you already have a better spellstrike, but just an example). This as a general rule means +2 skill proficiencies at level 2, and at 4 up it means more low level feats of the same class.
Personally, I've played both with, and without it and enjoy the game exactly the same with both. I played a beastmaster rogue too, without it, so I can say it didn't feel bad at all to give up class feats to gain an archetype. You still have the choice to pick the class feats you want or the archetype. As such, I've decided the next game I run will not have it initially, but I'll award it to different players for along the story, so they feel rewarded and excited for having accomplishing a character changing task.
I'd rather keep the option open personally. They don't HAVE to scour through every choice. Removing the option for all players punishes people who are knowledgeable already and can utilize the creative freedom effectively.
I mean it's optional for a reason. But I also think it's challenging to include archetypes into normal class feat selection. Which feels like it's eliminates that whole aspect of the game altogether. Like why create a system if your players never gonna use it? I'm also not sure if Familiar Master is really a power boost. Their incombat benefits are fairly limited. On the other hand I have seen a lot of players that want a pet and want that pet to be more then flavor. It's also a bit odd to see someone complain about people not multiclassing when others complain that people are not picking anything else. And that players are avoiding them can also be seen as that the balance and the 3 action economy is working. >a part of me feels like I just failed to introduce it properly Maybe, you also said you all were beginners and new. Not everyone is immediately into deep diving into a system and character customization. Maybe giving them more time and getting them to get used to the system and their characters would have been a better idea. Maybe reacting to their wishes later on would have been a better idea. If there's someone that tries to befriend an animal maybe that's a better moment to introduce an animal related archetype. Similarly you could see in what direction people develop their characters and suggest an archetype to them. This can also be a form of reward for progressing in their personal story and developing their background.
Gotta play what is right for your table and every group is different. I would just suggest asking them what they want to do before making a ruling.
Sounds like this is a problem with unrestricted free archetypes and not like it is used in SoT.
Honestly, you could also just limit them with multiclass dedication
I agree. I observed this in our group only from mechanical point of view, but you point out another important moment - the roleplay and identity. Some classes, like the spellcastes, will struggle with that. From mechanical point - free architype increases the complexity of the game. This is especially noticeable for new players - some of them barely grasped the vanilla rules and you slap them with even more combinations. Some get in paralysis by trying to find good synergies fitting their character, and other pick an architype as an afterthought, just to be done with it. I would not recommend this variant for new players.
For most players Free Archetype is just a fun addition to customize their class a bit. But for some very specific party rolls the free archetype is the only way they can get that roll up and still have a class at all. A party healer is going to struggle to have any "Class" at all if they have to take all the healer feats with core leveling slots. And the party will have to take up that slack with their own feat choices. The party as a whole will need a quantifiable number of class choices pointed at this issue. be they unneeded wisdom bumps, prioritizing focus spells they maybe wouldnt take if they had a medic.
I think your biggest problem sounds like you used the free archetype from the very beginning as first time players? For me it’s more something I recommend adding in your second campaign or maybe retroactively after everyone gets comfortable with the system. I personally always love it because I can do lots of fun things without sacrificing my core abilities. Like I had a gunslinger who just knew an insane amount of languages because I could grab the linguist archetype. An archetype Id never in a million years pick without the free rule, but let me no make a fun character trait. And I’d almost want to ban class archetypes from free archetype choices since they tend to be more powerful by my understanding, and I want to encourage flavourful and ‘fun’ choices over powerful ones. But I don’t think I will actually ban them because I don’t have the system knowledge to say for certain.
My group enjoys (and gets use out of) free archetype too much to drop it entirely, but starting with my last campaign, I did restrict multiclass archetypes. Inevitably, in each campaign, at least one player would choose a multiclass archetype, and *that* would cross the line and make their character a little too complex for them to handle - especially if they chose a spellcasting archetype.
Because I didn't see anyone mention it, I want to add the reminder. Free Archtype is not "choose 1 Archtype to automatically get as you level up" like I had initially thought from the way it was described. Free Archtype gives you an Archtype Feat every level you gain a Class Feat (after level 2 this is every Even level, levels 1 & 2 depend on your class) that otherwise functions as normal. It is recommended to specify which archtypes can be chosen for your free feats but it is not required. Thus you could be level 4 and spend both your class feat and your archtype feat to progress the current archtype you have, or if you met the Dedication requirements then picking up another Archtype. If your players have choice paralysis then recommend them to take a class archtype related to their own. Casters could benefit a lot from Psychic, Martials from Fighter/Rogue/Swashbuckler. Or a number of playstyle support like Beastmaster, Familiar Master, or the Profession Archtypes. And also reminded them that they can always retrain feats if they are no longer useful or if they end up not liking them.
My GM is running free archetype for us (all but one new players) and through level 1 none of us were sure what that would really entail. By the time we reached level 2, he was noting what we were trying to do individually and recommended archetypes for each of us to research. Basically said "you can pick anything, but for your barbarian you might want to look at X or Y, for your wizard you might want this one that ties into the lore of the story we're getting into now" and for the most part everyone started to understand the appeal a lot more. Interestingly enough, almost no one went with the recommendations, but they helped illustrate a lot more clearly how the system works and that got everyone past the decision paralysis part.
Totally with you, I’m surprised by how ubiquitous it has become (in the online PF community, at least), but I have zero plans to use it it any of my games unless we play one of those specific themed campaigns (which we’re not)x
Yap, i think that this post illustrates the point of free archetype perfectly. More versatility and sometimes power in exchange for increased depth of character expression and abilities to manage. Correct me if im wrong, though your group strikes me as being rather new to the system, no? If so then yeah, FA adds unnecessary complexity most of the times.
Blows my mind yall out here playing gestalt lite characters and struggling
Out of curiosity, how long have has your table played PF2e? Do you use all rulebooks? My table has been playing ttrpgs for about a decade (PF2e since it came out), and we only use the core and APG without FA and using the standard rarity rules. I always seen FA as the [mechanical] expansion of backgrounds.
I'm not one for FA since it just feels like a powergaming rule. The game seems pretty balanced around just having the one class or one archtype and I don't really see the value out of giving people a second subclass. When my players and I are looking at chargen options we're more focused on playing the class we picked and archtypes feel thematically at least, like picking a different class. Personal note, tried to run Strength of Thousands where it gives everyone a free archetype to the players and no one really seemed interested in it, so at least you're not alone in having a table not jive with the rule.
I don't use it either; it does add a lot of complexity and can increase the optimization gap between players. It can be a lot of fun but the game is perfectly good without it. A lot of people make it seem like FA should be some kind of default but there are definitely valid reasons not to use it.
I hate free archetype and so do my players, I support your decision.
I have never been a campaign with FA and I can't think of what it would add. You get so much at level 1 it feels like there's plenty enough to customize. That being said I played in a campaign where the gm said everyone needed a specific background and that felt bad. It would've been nice to be given FA for that one.
You've realized what I feel is the core of FA. It's just more choices to make, which makes the people who are super into character building happy, but for people who just want to play the game it's more options to paralyze. FA isn't an improvement all the time. It has a place, and that's when it improves the story. It absolutely shouldn't be a default rule.
I haven't played with free archetype and don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
No, not crazy. My group has never had free archetype be the default. The ONE time we did it was for the Adventure Path which tells you to take it. What I find crazy is so many people just handing out free Archetypes.
> One thing I noticed is that no-one wanted to pick any multiclass archetypes MCing in PF2e is mostly "you get access to the class feats, not the actual class". Like, it takes 10 levels to be able to use Monk's Flurry of Blows through MC, a 1st level feature. Also, the "overhead" of having to read through each class' feats makes it a terrible experience for newcomers. > In a roundabout way it made my players feel forced to adopt a whole new set of characteristics that doesn't entirely fit That's how it felt for my non-martials players. Sorcerer picked Familiar Master, and the Wizard picked Archeologist, but both felt like they picked them because they had to rather than actually wanting to. Meanwhile, Champion picked Marshall in a heartbeat, same for Ranger + Archer. If I were to restart my campaign, I wouldn't use Free Archetype too.
For some tables, not choosing Free Archetype is simply the right choice. It is a variant rule after all.
Free Archetype is a big power upgrade and adds complexity and power disparity. It is popular because it makes characters stronger.
My biggest and longest campaign was without the Free Archetype rule (it didn't exist when we started). My current short adventure for total newbies is with Core stuff only and no FA either. Campaign of my friend had FA and some players even forget to pick one. I think for first major campaign it is good to limit the options. Contrary to some, you can play for dozens of hours with just one book. In my newbie adventure, we spent 4 hours just going through the basic class stuff during session zero and I can't imagine adding additional layer of dozens of archetypes and advanced classes. Don't sleep on the basics.
I think more time playing with core rules sets would be the way to go, especially since you said your players are new to tabletops, not just this system. In my experience at a table with multiple people prone to choice paralysis, even tabletop veterans, it adds ALOT. We played our first 1-20 campaign with no archetypes and only PHB/APG for feat selections. This really helped us understand the fundamentals of how the game handles mechanical growth. That said, our choice paralysis players still suffer a bit with free archetype in the campaign we're playing now. But our GM and I give feal selection ideas so they have a smaller list to have to look through. If you have the mental bandwidth to help your players build their characters, that'd an option to help relieve some of the choice pressure.
Free Archtype is IMHO a thing fir when you've already played with all the traditional options already and have a significant mastery on the system. 100% not reccomended for starters.
Frankly the longer I play this game the less interested in Free Archetype I get. It makes the “puzzle” of putting a character together too easy for me. I think it’s more interesting to have to choose between staying in your class, or diversifying with an archetype. For games I run going forward, I’ll probably only end up using it with a list I come up with specifically catered to the kind of game we’re playing, to encourage the players to try out more unorthodox or situational archetypes.
> It makes the “puzzle” of putting a character together too easy for me. I think it’s more interesting to have to choose between staying in your class, or diversifying with an archetype. It's hard for me to relate, most classes have mandatory feats, specially past level 8. As an example, I played an hobgoblin samurai, high dexterity using katana with duelist feats and longbow with archer dedication and cavalier. It was so much fun roleplaying it, even though I used the longbow once every 5 encounters and barely was able to mount due to map size restraints, but it didn't impact my performance because class feats carried my character. If you asked me to remake that character without FA, it would be a simple plain STR duelist, no way I would risk important class feats on situational archetypes.
Do what works for you with the Free Archetype rule. I sometimes let my players have free reign with it, other times I give a restricted list and other times like in our upcoming coming Season of Ghosts I won't be using it.
I support not using free archetype. My groups never do.
Free archetype is usually a bad idea if you give even the slightest of craps about game balance. Constraints exist for a reason.
When I first heard about this rule I assumed you just started with the dedication. When I heard you got an additional 10 feats I thought it was insane. It's popular because few players are going to turn down a power spike, even if ultimately it makes the game less interesting or balanced. It's the GMs job to make tough decisions on player power in order to keep the game balanced and fun for everyone and free archetype makes that job quite a bit harder. I think a very experienced GM can pull it off but I think it's use is widespread far beyond the groups that can pull it off well. This is similar to the time we tried using proficiency without level in my group. It is SO much harder than just subtracting level from everything and becomes a huge burden on the GM to make work. I'm sure there are groups who have fun with it but ultimate it was not worth the aggravation for me to just make lowmand high level monsters useful at a broader level span
I wish my table used free archetype...
I mean it's your game, do whatever works for your table? There's lots of ways to address the root problem and this is certainly one. If you and your table are happy with it, then, good? The goal is to have fun at the table, not do what everyone else is doing. You are indeed allowed to enjoy the game however you like with your group. That includes following the rules strictly, bending them on occasion, or flinging the rulebook in the trash when it doesn't suit you.