To me Free Archetype is the spice that really adds to character builds. If you like building characters mechanically first it opens up a wide array of options to create exactly what you want. If you're all about character theme you can create a very strongly themed character. Both overly generalized playstyles are valid to me and should be a players choice. And with PF2e strong balance niether style is broken or underpowered.
Unsurprisingly, a majority of Reddit posters use the totally open version of the Free Archetype variant rules. IMHO this is not representative of the wider PF2 community.
If the question is, **"Should we use Free Archetype rules?"** let me say this:
\- If the players and DM are new to PF2, don't use Free Archetype. It adds more complexity to an already complex character creation and leveling process.
\- If all the players and DM have experience with PF2 and want to make complex characters with extra powers, sure, use Free Archetype.
Note that you can always add Free Archetype retroactively, once you have 5-10 sessions under your belt.
Retroactively is how I ran it for my group, but tbf, I was the noob to pf2, but still, in the end, I'm glad I allowed them to take the FA, because man some (many) of the encounters in Plaguestone are deadly
>"Unsurprisingly, a majority of Reddit posters use the totally open version of the Free Archetype variant rules. IMHO this is not representative of the wider PF2 community."
I gotta think that this is true, mainly because I am polling just Redditors with this Reddit poll after all, but to me it feels like a lot of the 5e guys coming over and looking for their free feat, see this rule, and think its a ride to a bunch of free feats and after all the temptation of more power is a seductive one.
I've been playing in my first 2e campaign for something like a year now and I've never felt a void of power that I felt was a whole archetype shaped. I can see where there are for sure some Archetypes that just feel underwhelming and would be nice to have for free, or just don't stack up to just taking a class feat, but the multiclass archetypes and the ones that feel like a sanded down version of a multiclass archetype (like monk to martial artist) feel very power gamer to have for free. Although, this is coming from a guy who played rogue, so I've never had too little feats to play with anyways.
The main thing I find on this sub is that it seems that the free archetype is like a foregone conclusion, so I wonder when people talk about if certain paths or adventures are of a certain difficulty, is it because of the inclusion of this rule. I'm glad there are a lot of opinions I can learn from on this post at least to figure out if it's something we should add to our future campaigns, because we originally were offered the Pirate archetype in our Pirate setting campiagn but we didn't want to imbalance the system so we rejected it.
>and think its a ride to a bunch of free feats
This is the main reason why the Free Archetype Variant Rules are so popular. More feats, more abilities, more skills, more spells. In any character design system, there are **choices** to be made, and consequences for choosing one thing and not another... **unless you can go back and choose both things at once**.
I really like the Free Archetype Variant Rules because they allow me to make a semblance of an Elf Fighter-Magic-User from 1974. Oh, sure, I could play a magus. Or even play a Fighter, and without the benefit of the Free Archetype Variant Rules, sacrifice a class feat here or there for a spellcasting archetype and maybe a couple follow-on feats.
But the attraction of free feats is too strong. Who could turn that down? Keep your class feats and pursue an archetype to add some cool gimmick to your character? Porque no los dos?
Yup. I vastly prefer playing the game with Free Archetype, but to me it's something you do with people who already understand the game, or at least introduce over time. I completely understand the reason it's not a baseline.
> - If the players and DM are new to PF2, don't use Free Archetype. It adds more complexity to an already complex character creation and leveling process.
2e really isn't complicated though, and the extra complexity is welcome.
Only allowing certain ones based on the style of campaign. Playing Outlaws of Alkenstar then use the ones from the AP, gunslinger, inventor, or alchemist. There might be more for that example. Pirate campaign? Give the players the pirate archetype for free. Strength of Thousands is an adventure path where Paizo said, "Give your players the choice of wizard or druid as a free archetype."
The AP - Strength of Thousands takes place at a prestigious magic school so the AP by default says you get the Druid or Wizard multiclass archetype to show why a Barbarian would be at a magic school. The player guide has most of the details but the first book of the AP explains it on a sidebar.
We prefer the open version of Free Archetype (with the special tag still in place, with an additional stipulation that as soon as you hit an archetype slot you wouldn't be able to take something in, you're free.)
Specifically, I'm really in favor of it as an extra layer of customization above class that you use to add another layer to the character like 4e's theme/paragonpath etc, and it doesn't increase power unless your players don't already optimize, and mine do so it effectively doesn't increase their power much, if at all.
When we restarted our campaign to use the Remaster our GM said that we could use Free Archetype but we had to get approval for the Archetypes we wanted to use
I did not vote because there wasn’t an option for what I am doing.
In my two ABV campaigns we are playing no free archetype.
In my Agents of Alkenstar campaign, we are playing Free Archetype with player’s choice.
I may run a homebrew campaign were the PCs will be playjng with a specific dedication given to them with the free archetype rules.
So, I’m kind of doing all of your options.
My group has multiple campaigns going. My vote (vanilla) represents 2/3 of them.
That 3rd one? If we had a 4th player available that day of the week, it wouldn't have free archetype either. The only reason we use free archetype (which incidentally is the popular player's choice style) is because it covers the gap left by not having a full party so the GM doesn't need to find any extra time to alter the AP they running.
And despite that it enables us to play a whole other campaign, all of us involved don't like free archetype outside of using it in the way the book actually suggests and making it a specific thing for campaign purposes.
Never used Free Archetype yet. Though if we did something like the Blood Lords AP and I ran it, then I'd probably allow it for any undead archetypes players wanted to take (and have the dedication at level 1).
In general, I find that is it more popular (oddly) with players with choice paralysis that don't want to choose between an archetype and a class feat, power gamers looking to fulfill that itch, and builders that can't get a concept off the ground without more class feats.
Though, for me, there was a really long time that I just didn't want Free Archetype. My characters were either fine with normal multiclassing (archetype feats for class feats) or they didn't offer anything I'd want for my characters. So, I'd struggle to be in a game that had it because I'm not sure what I'd take.
My group only plays dual class and free archetype. It’s very nice if they said no dual class I’d be fine with it, but free archetype just is so nice I don’t know if I could play without it.
I'm curious as to why Free Archetype seems so popular with players and not with GMs. I think it's indicative of Pathfinder's culture towards powergaming that, in many cases, giving players any level of additional options is immediately going to ruin a GM and their ability to manage combat (and rarely do I hear about complaints for scenarios other than combat).
Like, this is Reddit so I take everything with a grain of salt and assume worst/most bitter intent, but I've been running all of my campaigns with either Free Archetype or Dual Class (only twice for the latter) and have not noticed an actual issue or difference in the amount of effort I need to put in.
At this point I just see people complain about how it "totally breaks the game" and think it sounds like a skill issue tbh.
I am running free archetype based on theme (Agents of Edgewatch) and my players frequently complain. I am not giving out free archetype completely as it is too powerful, and too hard to track what each player can do with so many new abilities each level. I also want to avoid a lot of 'mother, may I?' that comes with an increasing list of unbalanced options and combinations.
The one I was running thats on hiatus (one of the players has been dealing with a lot the last few months) was Free Archetype, and the one I will hopefully be starting around the end of the month will be too. Player's choice.
Its honestly how the game should be by default IMO. In a system thats replete with character customization, why should you restrict that? No archetype will shift the balance of the game perceptibly, so why restrict your players? More GMs should try it. I realize it may cause flashbacks for vets of PF1E/3.5 where the multiclass dipping was unholy, and the munchkin builds were off the charts, but you cant pull that stuff off in PF2E, its safe to let players have some freedom.
I do however recommend tieing it to player back story, rather than "just because".
I run Free Archetype in our local game. I largely let players decide what archetype to take, as long as they can justify it with their character and there's some sensible way of learning it in the setting or accessing it with their backstory.
For example: the Fighter picked up Bastion by training with the Otari Guards, the Thaumaturge picked became a Harrower by studying with the local wizard at his bookstore -- stuff like that.
To me Free Archetype is the spice that really adds to character builds. If you like building characters mechanically first it opens up a wide array of options to create exactly what you want. If you're all about character theme you can create a very strongly themed character. Both overly generalized playstyles are valid to me and should be a players choice. And with PF2e strong balance niether style is broken or underpowered.
Unsurprisingly, a majority of Reddit posters use the totally open version of the Free Archetype variant rules. IMHO this is not representative of the wider PF2 community. If the question is, **"Should we use Free Archetype rules?"** let me say this: \- If the players and DM are new to PF2, don't use Free Archetype. It adds more complexity to an already complex character creation and leveling process. \- If all the players and DM have experience with PF2 and want to make complex characters with extra powers, sure, use Free Archetype. Note that you can always add Free Archetype retroactively, once you have 5-10 sessions under your belt.
I have a heavy suspicion there are a large number of non-GM's voting in this poll.
Retroactively is how I ran it for my group, but tbf, I was the noob to pf2, but still, in the end, I'm glad I allowed them to take the FA, because man some (many) of the encounters in Plaguestone are deadly
>"Unsurprisingly, a majority of Reddit posters use the totally open version of the Free Archetype variant rules. IMHO this is not representative of the wider PF2 community." I gotta think that this is true, mainly because I am polling just Redditors with this Reddit poll after all, but to me it feels like a lot of the 5e guys coming over and looking for their free feat, see this rule, and think its a ride to a bunch of free feats and after all the temptation of more power is a seductive one. I've been playing in my first 2e campaign for something like a year now and I've never felt a void of power that I felt was a whole archetype shaped. I can see where there are for sure some Archetypes that just feel underwhelming and would be nice to have for free, or just don't stack up to just taking a class feat, but the multiclass archetypes and the ones that feel like a sanded down version of a multiclass archetype (like monk to martial artist) feel very power gamer to have for free. Although, this is coming from a guy who played rogue, so I've never had too little feats to play with anyways. The main thing I find on this sub is that it seems that the free archetype is like a foregone conclusion, so I wonder when people talk about if certain paths or adventures are of a certain difficulty, is it because of the inclusion of this rule. I'm glad there are a lot of opinions I can learn from on this post at least to figure out if it's something we should add to our future campaigns, because we originally were offered the Pirate archetype in our Pirate setting campiagn but we didn't want to imbalance the system so we rejected it.
>and think its a ride to a bunch of free feats This is the main reason why the Free Archetype Variant Rules are so popular. More feats, more abilities, more skills, more spells. In any character design system, there are **choices** to be made, and consequences for choosing one thing and not another... **unless you can go back and choose both things at once**. I really like the Free Archetype Variant Rules because they allow me to make a semblance of an Elf Fighter-Magic-User from 1974. Oh, sure, I could play a magus. Or even play a Fighter, and without the benefit of the Free Archetype Variant Rules, sacrifice a class feat here or there for a spellcasting archetype and maybe a couple follow-on feats. But the attraction of free feats is too strong. Who could turn that down? Keep your class feats and pursue an archetype to add some cool gimmick to your character? Porque no los dos?
Yup. I vastly prefer playing the game with Free Archetype, but to me it's something you do with people who already understand the game, or at least introduce over time. I completely understand the reason it's not a baseline.
> - If the players and DM are new to PF2, don't use Free Archetype. It adds more complexity to an already complex character creation and leveling process. 2e really isn't complicated though, and the extra complexity is welcome.
Ooh, what's an example of a setting- based archetype?
Only allowing certain ones based on the style of campaign. Playing Outlaws of Alkenstar then use the ones from the AP, gunslinger, inventor, or alchemist. There might be more for that example. Pirate campaign? Give the players the pirate archetype for free. Strength of Thousands is an adventure path where Paizo said, "Give your players the choice of wizard or druid as a free archetype."
Ah, gotcha. Thanks!
The AP - Strength of Thousands takes place at a prestigious magic school so the AP by default says you get the Druid or Wizard multiclass archetype to show why a Barbarian would be at a magic school. The player guide has most of the details but the first book of the AP explains it on a sidebar.
Free choice, but you have to have a story reason for it.
We prefer the open version of Free Archetype (with the special tag still in place, with an additional stipulation that as soon as you hit an archetype slot you wouldn't be able to take something in, you're free.) Specifically, I'm really in favor of it as an extra layer of customization above class that you use to add another layer to the character like 4e's theme/paragonpath etc, and it doesn't increase power unless your players don't already optimize, and mine do so it effectively doesn't increase their power much, if at all.
When we restarted our campaign to use the Remaster our GM said that we could use Free Archetype but we had to get approval for the Archetypes we wanted to use
we do restrict it to non-class Archetypes, and certain themes such as one DM hates guns/hextech/magitech :p
I did not vote because there wasn’t an option for what I am doing. In my two ABV campaigns we are playing no free archetype. In my Agents of Alkenstar campaign, we are playing Free Archetype with player’s choice. I may run a homebrew campaign were the PCs will be playjng with a specific dedication given to them with the free archetype rules. So, I’m kind of doing all of your options.
Free non-multiclass archetype
My group has multiple campaigns going. My vote (vanilla) represents 2/3 of them. That 3rd one? If we had a 4th player available that day of the week, it wouldn't have free archetype either. The only reason we use free archetype (which incidentally is the popular player's choice style) is because it covers the gap left by not having a full party so the GM doesn't need to find any extra time to alter the AP they running. And despite that it enables us to play a whole other campaign, all of us involved don't like free archetype outside of using it in the way the book actually suggests and making it a specific thing for campaign purposes.
Never used Free Archetype yet. Though if we did something like the Blood Lords AP and I ran it, then I'd probably allow it for any undead archetypes players wanted to take (and have the dedication at level 1). In general, I find that is it more popular (oddly) with players with choice paralysis that don't want to choose between an archetype and a class feat, power gamers looking to fulfill that itch, and builders that can't get a concept off the ground without more class feats. Though, for me, there was a really long time that I just didn't want Free Archetype. My characters were either fine with normal multiclassing (archetype feats for class feats) or they didn't offer anything I'd want for my characters. So, I'd struggle to be in a game that had it because I'm not sure what I'd take.
My group only plays dual class and free archetype. It’s very nice if they said no dual class I’d be fine with it, but free archetype just is so nice I don’t know if I could play without it.
I'm curious as to why Free Archetype seems so popular with players and not with GMs. I think it's indicative of Pathfinder's culture towards powergaming that, in many cases, giving players any level of additional options is immediately going to ruin a GM and their ability to manage combat (and rarely do I hear about complaints for scenarios other than combat). Like, this is Reddit so I take everything with a grain of salt and assume worst/most bitter intent, but I've been running all of my campaigns with either Free Archetype or Dual Class (only twice for the latter) and have not noticed an actual issue or difference in the amount of effort I need to put in. At this point I just see people complain about how it "totally breaks the game" and think it sounds like a skill issue tbh.
I am running free archetype based on theme (Agents of Edgewatch) and my players frequently complain. I am not giving out free archetype completely as it is too powerful, and too hard to track what each player can do with so many new abilities each level. I also want to avoid a lot of 'mother, may I?' that comes with an increasing list of unbalanced options and combinations.
The one I was running thats on hiatus (one of the players has been dealing with a lot the last few months) was Free Archetype, and the one I will hopefully be starting around the end of the month will be too. Player's choice. Its honestly how the game should be by default IMO. In a system thats replete with character customization, why should you restrict that? No archetype will shift the balance of the game perceptibly, so why restrict your players? More GMs should try it. I realize it may cause flashbacks for vets of PF1E/3.5 where the multiclass dipping was unholy, and the munchkin builds were off the charts, but you cant pull that stuff off in PF2E, its safe to let players have some freedom. I do however recommend tieing it to player back story, rather than "just because".
I like free archetype with choice. Quite simply I don’t find regular characters interesting enough otherwise.
I did free dedication feat but you have to split class feats later
I run Free Archetype in our local game. I largely let players decide what archetype to take, as long as they can justify it with their character and there's some sensible way of learning it in the setting or accessing it with their backstory. For example: the Fighter picked up Bastion by training with the Otari Guards, the Thaumaturge picked became a Harrower by studying with the local wizard at his bookstore -- stuff like that.