ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -In addition to Flexible Spellcaster, Elementalist is another class archetype that is available to multiple classes. (EDIT: And Wellspring Mage! All of these are in Secrets of Magic.) -3:48 A commenter points out that Class Archetypes pre-Remaster were the exception of NOT requiring you to take 2 more feats in the Archetype before taking another Dedication feat. The Remaster made that a universal requirement with all archetypes. I think is in error, and the real intention is that Class Archetype dedications do NOT require you to take 2 more feats before taking another Dedication feat.
*A hide out of diabolical necromancers. Minding their desecrating of the dead business.* *Just then, blue robed figures burst in.* "No one expects the Pharasmin Vindication!"
I mean 2e has historically done one specific thing to traditionally half-caster classes: Make 'em a focus caster. Champion? Focus spells. Ranger? Since APG, focus spells. Magus and Summoner also give us a glimpse into what "true' half-casting might look like but I doubt we'll see much more of limited spellcasting in the future.
Shame. I kinda dig the design space of bounded casting. Tall spells, but not a wide box of tools. Tbf I am biased towards liking everything magus and gish. Magus/duskblade was my introduction to the hobby after all. My first long-term character was a pf1e psychic casting magus that could summon a malleable psychic sword. Yes, I am a glutton for punishment when it comes to grasping complex systems, how could you tell? ;).
Previous to the Remaster, class archetypes were the only ones without the "You can’t select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from [this] archetype," so there was never a problem with the Free Archetype rule because you didn't have the universal dedication restriction. Now they really need the opposite text explicitly allowing you to take another dedication.
I'm just bummed that Bloodrager doesn't actually get sorcerer bloodlines and overall has an entirely different theme than in 1e. Will probably have fun with the mechanics
Yeah, I can see why they don't but it does lean on a new feel. Just go in with the expectation that this is NOT the same class. It seems to be a blast for what it is.
Overall, I like the 2e Bloodrager when it's taken as its own thing, disconnected from 1e. But bloodrager was a very popular class in 1e, so it's perfectly understandable that a lot of people were disappointed after seeing that 2e was getting bloodrager, but then finding out that it was very different from the 1e version (since 2e bloodrager is a barbarian with blood magic, the sorcerer half of the 1e bloodrager is pretty much entirely absent aside from just having magic).
Does the Bloodrager give all spells the rage trait, or does it only give said trait to the spells learned through the archetype. With RAW, since class archetypes don’t lock dedications, you can take Sorcerer. Assuming it gives all spells rage trait, proceed to grab the focus spells from your bloodline for maximum flavor and fun. Sadly I’m not surprised they simplified it. I mean the bloodlines in 2e are basic already for a class dedicated to them. Maybe they could’ve given you focus spells based on each bloodline, but I can’t see them giving too much for a class archetype
@Iceblade269 The specific text from the archetype is "Spells in your repertoire gain the rage trait while you are raging". I believe this is meant to be read as "spells in your (bloodrager) repertoire", since this is part of the same ability that gives you that spell repertoire, and not spells in any other spell repertoire you might gain (since spell repertoires from each class/archetype are separate). This also means that it will never apply to any focus spells, regardless of source, since those are not part of your spell repertoire at all.
I really like that avengers get ranger feats for dual wielding along with medium armor. It does a great job of letting you get the best of both worlds, while encouraging build diversity. Obviously being able to sneak attack with a deity's favored weapon opens up the door to some new strength rogue possibilities, but you now have access to some great aggressive action compression if you do decide to dual wield.
Avenger looks like a fun option for a Red Mantis Assassin PC in Prey for Death. Especially since it gives you (auto-scaling) training in Sawtooth Sabers!
The new bloodrager *is* neat, and probably fits the name better. But it also definitely misses the point of the original - the ability to cast a certain number of spells from *sorcerous bloodlines* while raging, maybe get some sorcerous powers like Aberrant long freaky arms, or claws, or a familiar. Now it's just pick-and-mix from two spell lists - with some weird blood-drinking and bleeding flavour, which feels really specific. I will miss the old bloodrager, i hope this one inspires people in new ways, but it feels like we lost something.
As for the Avenger and Vindicator, I basically agree with Ronald here. They took slayer, a flavor-neutral class with some divine options in its own archetypes, and turned it into *two* divine-specific archetypes. It makes sense for War of Immortals, perhaps, but going forward these flavor changes feel really limiting overall compared to the style of play we had in 1e. I love the Inquisitor, i had an Osiriani Inquisitor of Pharasma character for years, and I'm finding very little support for making that character again in 2e. He's not a warpriest, he's not a rogue, he's not a ranger - he's a spellcaster with training in knife-fighting, medicine, and persuasion. Perhaps my intentions were a bit "uber-gish" but there's just not a good option for that playstyle besides a heavily archetyped cleric, which loses much of the "Judgement" feel held previously. However, I'll still try and see if this new Vindicator archetype fits him. I'm always excited for new rules, even if I'm a pessimist about certain things.
@MrCoolioto I'm right there with ya! Some people recommended Thaumaturge to me, but it just doesn't feel the same. Ironically, I had no interest in ever trying a 'Ranger' until this new archetype, haha.
I mean. I usually feel annoyed when people bring it up, but flavor is free. That Pharasmin sounds like it could be achieved with a heavily religious thaum or investigator with archetype casting. Exploit in particular feels very easy to give the flavor of divine magic/judgement. Do the same kind of flavor on the divine disharmony and you're cooking. Maybe not cooking exactly what you're looking for, it sounds fairly specific, but cooking with something interesting at least. Not too jazzed about thaums being pegged as these "placebomancers". I've always liked the read on thaums as "mages but not casters" If that makes any sense. From that lense, making them more divine flavor rather than occult flavor opens some doors for funky concepts I feel. TLDR: A religious thaum would be cool. Edit: typos
I haven't played 1e and that does look different which is unfortunate in that sense, but as someone who loves life stealing, gishes and power-at-a-cost concepts the bloodrager is my dream class. I used to play hearthstone and the gameplay design of Gul'Dan was my favourite, that's what it reminds me of
I liked the class archetypes, but I thought the way they tied them to the 1e classes was really weird. The 2e Ranger is already a lot like the 1e Slayer, with Hunt Prey working a lot like Studied Target and also having the Precision bonus damage to replace the Sneak Attack. The original class did not have the religious flavor they gave the Avenger (even though the Iconic character did). The 1e Slayer was a d10 hp full martial class, so a lot more like the Ranger than the Rogue. The 1e Inquisitor was a d8 HP skill monkey. They shared the second most skill points per level spot with the Bard and the Investigator, they also had every single skill as class skills and had bonus to some of them too. They also were limited to simple weapons and their deity weapon, so the Avenger is actually a lot more like the 1e Inquisitor than the Vindicator. You also pointed out the difference in the Bloodrager flavor, which honestly I liked. If I want to get a bloodline on a Barbarian, I already have other options through dedications and whatnot. Edit: I wanted to add that the Bloodrager actually feels a lot like Mercer's 5e Blood Hunter.
I really liked the 1e slayer, but a large part of the point of it was to make a fighter that worked. In 2e, the Fighter already works, so it needs a different niche.
@jeffmacdonald9863 my group used go play on lowers tiers of difficulty, we were very casual, so we never really optmized on PF1e. I just got into that when playing the cRPGs, kind of out of necessity. I never knew the Fighter was that bad, honestly, and I always thought of the slayer as a urban ranger / assassin / bounty hunter that worked. On optimization discourse, what I heard was that the Slayer came out in the same book a Druid Archetype that outclassed it came out too. That Druid Archetype that also got studied target and slayer talents. This is just what I heard, I don't know or remember that archetype in the PNP and I know it is not in the cRPGs.
I like Vindicator a lot! There's been some math done on Ranger around YTube on how your effective DC stacks-up assuming a 16 wis start compared to a full caster and there are some levels where your effective DC is actually higher than what a full casters would be! (Notable levels being 5, 6 and 9) For most of the game your effective DC is about the same as a full casters and their spell attack rolls can wind-up being the highest in the game, making them a really potent gish. I do however wish there was more of a reason to take Religion beyond trained as a skill outside of the Cleric dedication. In that sense, the archetype seems really confused. Instructive Strike and Thorough Research are really powerful on a Ranger; people often forget that Ranger has some of the best recall knowledge abilities in the game between Monster Hunter, Monster Warden, Additional Recollection, Hunters Luck, Master Monster Hunter and Legendary Monster Hunter. These are all abilities which the archetype seems to want you to take to boost your spell attack rolls and synergize with the light investigator chassis the archetype borrows. The problem however, is that the Ranger recall knowledge feats want you to invest in nature and not religion since Master Monster Hunter makes all recall knowledge's against creatures (what Vindicator seems to be going for) based on Nature. Plus, the dedication and interrogate feats feel a little too specific to warrant building around, especially if you want to worship a lesser known deity or you're in a game where you move about a lot.
Ooo, that’s a really solid point. If I ever run a game with a vindicator in it, I’m totally down with replacing feats and abilities from the base class that require nature to be substituted for religion instead. Thanks!
To me another part of the issue is that Master Monster Hunter is a level 10 feat, so depending on your campaign length your build-around isn't coming online until half to most of the way through the campaign. If the dedication feat was the ability to use Religion for all monster identification Recall Knowledge checks I think the Class Archetype would be a lot better. If there would be power concerns I'd argue it wouldn't be too broken as to Recall Knowledge well would require you to focus on yet another attribute (Intelligence on top of your physical attack stat AND Wisdom as your casting stat).
@@NXPhoenix3 100% agree on that point, Master Monster Hunter being so high levelled really hurts the recall knowledge chassis this archetype seems to be pointing you towards. It's the same problem Outwit Ranger has actually, that part of the build just takes forever to come online. Now granted when it does come online it's absolutely bonkers since you can give everyone bonuses to attack, saves, and ac; and if you have additional recollection you can ID 2 creatures all for the price of 1 action. It's one of those strange things where I understand *why* it's such a high level feat, but it being so high level makes it such an unappealing choice. Luckily, with the spellcasting boosting this archetype has going for it unlike Outwit Ranger you do have stuff you can do prior to that by just being a really solid gish, but it does still suck.
In 1e, you could take multiple class archetypes at once so long as none of them modified the same base feature. I think that would be a reasonable rule for this too, but I think the creators just really don't want to open the balancing bag of worms that that would be. Class archetypes are infamously broken in 1e.
Worth noting that avenger gets you crit spec with ranged weapon(so long its your deity's favoured weapon) which other rogues lack. (Might be able to get it from an archetype like archer? Idk)
If I am reading this correctly, the Exultant Blood Magic feat at level 18 doesn't give them spell ranks 7 and 8, but rather, gives you the Breadth archetype feature. Meaning a Bloodrager's highest spell rank is going to be 6th, but they'll have two slots for each rank in their repertoire. That's... an interesting choice. Edit: Just out of curiosity, how would you rule a Bloodrager using Harvest Blood on themselves to get rid of the drained condition?
it was corrected in the errata now it says "Change the second sentence of the Exultant Blood Magic feat to “You gain the master spellcasting benefits.”"
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGI suggested counting all *class* Archetype feats in the discord as only class feats as they are designed to modify the class chassis rather be pure horizontal power which is the point of all other Archetypes in Pathfinder 2e
i wish we didnt lose the osiran gods :( my character was a worshiper of thoth and had a hole nation built around worship of him and now thats kinda upended that lore
Yeah the thing with the PF1 Inquistor that I think a lot of folks miss is that it was the divine version of the Bard. Their chasis were basically identical, 'half-casters, 3/4th attack bonus progression, d8 hp, 6+Int skill points, and 2 good saves.' But whereas the Bard is built around using their Performance to buff their party, the Inquisitor is built around their Judgment to debuff enemies. But yeah, in much the same way the 1e APG gave us "divine Sorcerer" in the Oracle, it also gave us "divine Bard" in the Inquisitor. But when you look at the end result it's a jack-of-all-trades class that uses divine magic to hunt down their enemies. Since everything but the divine magic can already apply to a 2e Ranger, it makes the most sense for the Inquistor to be a Ranger archetype that gets access to divine spells. That being said, I've been skeptical of the need for PF2e to ever have bespoke class archetypes given the modularity of the classes themselves. The existence of the class archetypes themselves has always made the most sense as an archetype that only applies for a subset of classes. That's why they only showed up in Secrets of Magic, where they could make Archetypes that only apply to spellcasters.
4:24 or allow you to use the free archetype slot to take the class archetype dedication and let you take a standard class feet at level 2 with your class feet slot
It’s worth noting that “only my doom may claim me” doesn’t specify the strike has to deal bludgeoning/piercing/slashing only, nor that the resistance only applies to those damage types. Which seems interesting.
it seems to me like vindicator is an inquisitor, exorcist, and monster hunter (who has some spells), while an avenger is a religious assassin (who has faith but no magic)
I wish they had made the urban option something all Rangers can take, its pretty lame that the only way to play an urban Ranger is to play a Vindicator.
At 3:48, I disagree with your interpretation of the language. Free Archetype states that the free feats are "extra class feat[s]), so I would interpret the wording about "you must choose its dedication feat as your 2nd level class feat" also applies to the free archetype feat
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned something similar, but I have to disagree with Ronald about the idea that you can take more than one Class Archetype, simply for reason that you are required to take the Dedication feat at Level 2. There is no way to take two such feats at the same level (It specifically calls out that you have to take it at level 2, not that you can take the Level 2 feat at any time).
For warrior of Legend: there is a Kholo feat that lets you do 1 slashing damage to yourself to poison a weapon. I can easily see a Kholo warrior of legend using THAT to trigger the bonuses,
I think my main problem with both vindicator and rogue is that they’re wayy too restrictive. Despite locking you into the archetype, they also you lock you into a certain racket / edge. Vindicator would’ve made Outwit edge much more appealing with the boosts from the archetype. Avenger Rogue would’ve been less appaling if you could at least grab thief, ruffian, or scoundrel
I started running Kingmaker a few weeks ago and my group grab Jaethal for their party. Adventure says Jaethal is an Inquisitor and was sad to find that she is not a primary companion in the Kingmaker Companion's Guide so she didn't was up for helping the party in combat encounters I've never played pf1e so i just went and made her a Cleric with Rogue dedication and I'll probably make up some story for her Companion Quest. I wonder if I should maker her a Ranger Vindicator since she is an Elf afterall.
Wait, that Spear Dance feat seems *obscenely* good. Polearms are already really good weapons for fighters because of how well Reach synergizes with Reactive Strike, and it looks like Spear Dance doesn't have the Flourish trait. So an enemy that doesn't have reach has to walk up to you, either provoking a Reactive Strike or stopping at the edge of your reach and Stepping the last 5 feet, spending an extra action, and then on your turn you get to make two attacks (and have a third action left over for something like Demoralize!), stepping back twice-- meaning they now once again have to either take a reactive strike or step forward twice to be able to hit you again. And you even have a third action. Admittedly, this mobility might not be as strong if the enemy has other targets they can go for instead, but if you're their only viable target, that gives you such an insane action economy advantage I feel like it outstrips any other special fighter attacks you could be using.
It is limited to Divine spells but it seems that Silence the Profane is stronger than actual Counterspell, with less restrictions and it costs only a reaction and maybe ammo for a ranged weapon, nothing as hard to replace as a reaction and a spell of same rank
I dont mind Vindicators not getting spellcasting, but they should at least be able to cast their deity´s cleric spells as focus spells, such as Sure Strike for Ragathiel.
I feel like the Inquisitor’s successor should’ve been a cleric archetype, maybe giving light armor proficiency and reflex boosts, plus a hunt prey action that interacts with spells somehow. I get trying to interact with the ranger, but then focusing on casting divine spells seems misguided for a martial
Fellas, is your barbarian: -dumb as bricks -vampire-piston powered -constantly hurling bits of metal at the enemies? Then that's not your barbarian, that's V1 ULTRAKILL
To me the difference in vibes between avenger and vindicator is a vindicator is an official part of the church and a avenger is not something people talk about openly
Gouging claw is melee though? It doesn't say melee weapon/unarmed strike, just melee strike, so a melee spell strike should also work? Melee or ranged are a different category than weapon or spell or unarmed.
These all seem pretty cool, though hero of legend seems a bit limit and dangerous. Half level of vulnerability will add up pretty quickly and losing shields and armor will definitely sting. But people have done crazier things for +2 damage like take the barbarain dedication.
I think the reason a lot of people get confused by the Avenger/Slayer becoming a religious class is because a lot of people fail to understand the following: Avengers/Slayers are Assassins. And the word for Assassin comes from the Order of Assassins: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Assassins Ergo, whether we are aware of it or not, assassination has origins in religious conflict. Don't believe me? Look at the story of the iconic Slayer/Avenger, Zadim, whose backstory is of being a religious assassin for the Cult of the Dawnflower. Also, the key difference between Avengers and Vindicators is the follow: Avengers hunt down the enemies outside the faith. Vindicators hunt down the enemies within the faith.
I think by RAW, there's nothing preventing that! The flavor text of Siphon Magic says "foe" however, and I think a GM is within their rights to prevent an exploit here
@TheRulesLawyerRPG Seems sensible. An alternative would be to keep a captured foe to bring along and harvest from as required. Like some sort of ambulatory blood bank. Might need clarifying to only work in significant combat encounters...
Well, one reason you can't have multiple class archetypes is because you HAVE to take the 2nd lvl dedication feat... not sure how you'd pull that off if you have 2... I feel like the normal restrictions for needing 2 more feats from an archetype don't really count for class archetypes, because it's literally impossible for one of them (Flexible Spellcaster) in which case, what would you do? Make it so the player can't have ANY other dedications? Seems silly.
I don't know how I feel about the Avenger and Vindicator archetype's having a feat tax... It makes sense for class dedications, since you get a ton of versatility, but those archetypes lock you off from just as many feats as they provide. At 20th level one feat isn't that big of deal, but at early levels which most people actually play, that's a pretty big ask for a archetypes which seem kinda clunky at best... The Avenger also just seems poorly thought out at early levels - if you actually wanna take any of their unique feats for the first quarter of the game, you have to go duel wielding, but they also basically have to use a favoured weapon to get any benefit from their racket, which might not be one handed. And in addition, they don't get Deadly Simplicity? So I guess dieties with simple favoured weapons just don't employ Avengers?
The one thing I don't like about class archetypes is how they eat up a class feat slot. I wish they just worked more like alternate class features in Starfinder 1E. But I feel like these class archetypes tend to have enough tradeoffs that eating a 2nd level feat is unnecessary.
Hmm... the bottom line is that class archetypes act like other archetypes. But they also are a way to customize your class: they substitute some of your class features.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I think in this case that it is more like a prestige class, of traditional D&D 3.5 systems: prestige classes always have specific requirements and always supplemented or directly changed class features. PF1E did a similar thing with their prestige classes, but I prefer PF1E prestige classes to D&D 3.5 in terms of balance and representation. Just my interpretation of it all.
Wait, so if the warrior is crit and goes down by his weakness. He becomes doomed 2 and dying 2; that means if you fail the next dying check you’re dead… Do the devs know how often we get crit in this game? Or better yet, how often I crit my players? And now they have no shield and no heavy armor? And you took away the choice for weapons? Am I the only one that thinks this fighter is bad? Maybe, if I could have a ranged option like guns, but hell…
I played a vindicator, worst player character I ever played. Vindicator's mark is actually a 3 action, not two, since you need hunt prey first. If you fail in the spell attack, you are fucked. Since you need a complete round to attack your prey again, and there's no chance that enemy is going to be still alive with two or three other PC's attacking.....
Warrior of Legends seems kind of underwhelming and weird. It's clearly inspired by Achilles, but Achilles fought with a spear and shield, not just a spear.
My opinion is probably unpopular. But I don't see why people were requesting for inquistor's return. That class in 1e was awful to play, your features were weak even at low levels, the class felt like it couldn't decide on what it wanted to be. Overall. That class left me with a negative impression of Pathfinder from a good while. Also. I'm not keen on the changes to bloodrager. I get what they were trying to do. But all they're done is power crept Dhampier and vampire archetype for if you want to make a vampire based pc. The fact that you're forced into a blood drinking thing really messes with the flavor of bloodragers. Crucify me on the discord if you want Ronald. But imo. Pazio has BUTCHERED bloodrager. To the point I'd rather play the class in Bg3 via a mod. A harsh opinion, yes. But this is a class I hold near and dear to my heart. So hopefully you can understand why I'm not happy with the changes.
I am incredibly disappointed Blood hunter was a barbarian with a bloodline, not a vampire barbarian. Slayer was a mix of rogue and ranger, not a religious killer. What was so hard to make these for PF2E? Yes, I can play a ranger with a rogue archetype or a barbarian with a sorcerer archetype, but that's not the point. When I read "bloodrager", I wanna play bloodrager. Not this.
If you want to play bloodrager from old maybe consider asking your GM to run a dual-class game and run a bloodrager Barbarian with a sorcerer? Could be pretty fun.
Outside of the Avenger, none of these archetypes look all that appealing. Seneschal and Vindicator are okay, but bloodrager is disappointing (OG bloodrager was far more interesting IMO) and Warrior of Legend is way too on the nose with the Achilles myth, the name invokes what could have been a much broader idea, where as the way it is presented makes it effectively 'the Achilles Archetype' which is frankly boring IMO.
Yup, quality dropped. The 2 classes are cool, then, almost e everything else, starting from the dedications , is unplaytested, rushed and poorly executed.
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-In addition to Flexible Spellcaster, Elementalist is another class archetype that is available to multiple classes. (EDIT: And Wellspring Mage! All of these are in Secrets of Magic.)
-3:48 A commenter points out that Class Archetypes pre-Remaster were the exception of NOT requiring you to take 2 more feats in the Archetype before taking another Dedication feat. The Remaster made that a universal requirement with all archetypes. I think is in error, and the real intention is that Class Archetype dedications do NOT require you to take 2 more feats before taking another Dedication feat.
As is the Wellspring caster
Also, don't forget the Spellshot Gunslinger Class Archetype.
@@KOkami03 that one is only available to the Gunslinger though
The difference between an Avenger and an Inquisitor is that if you play an Inquisitor, no one expects you.
FETCH THE COMFY CHAIR.
especially if you're Spanish
those guys come outta nowhere
*A hide out of diabolical necromancers. Minding their desecrating of the dead business.*
*Just then, blue robed figures burst in.*
"No one expects the Pharasmin Vindication!"
As a Spaniard I now need to make thst character
I mean 2e has historically done one specific thing to traditionally half-caster classes: Make 'em a focus caster. Champion? Focus spells. Ranger? Since APG, focus spells. Magus and Summoner also give us a glimpse into what "true' half-casting might look like but I doubt we'll see much more of limited spellcasting in the future.
Shame. I kinda dig the design space of bounded casting. Tall spells, but not a wide box of tools.
Tbf I am biased towards liking everything magus and gish. Magus/duskblade was my introduction to the hobby after all.
My first long-term character was a pf1e psychic casting magus that could summon a malleable psychic sword. Yes, I am a glutton for punishment when it comes to grasping complex systems, how could you tell? ;).
Harbinger, the new archetype for cleric, is a limited spellcaster.
its seems appropriate to get a scam call that you rebuff during the Avenger section
Previous to the Remaster, class archetypes were the only ones without the "You can’t select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from [this] archetype," so there was never a problem with the Free Archetype rule because you didn't have the universal dedication restriction. Now they really need the opposite text explicitly allowing you to take another dedication.
Ah, this is valuable information, thanks
I'm just bummed that Bloodrager doesn't actually get sorcerer bloodlines and overall has an entirely different theme than in 1e. Will probably have fun with the mechanics
Yeah, I can see why they don't but it does lean on a new feel. Just go in with the expectation that this is NOT the same class. It seems to be a blast for what it is.
Overall, I like the 2e Bloodrager when it's taken as its own thing, disconnected from 1e. But bloodrager was a very popular class in 1e, so it's perfectly understandable that a lot of people were disappointed after seeing that 2e was getting bloodrager, but then finding out that it was very different from the 1e version (since 2e bloodrager is a barbarian with blood magic, the sorcerer half of the 1e bloodrager is pretty much entirely absent aside from just having magic).
@kattennan1299 Yeah it was a strange choice to tie it back to the OG bloodrager. Really should have just taken a different name entirely.
Does the Bloodrager give all spells the rage trait, or does it only give said trait to the spells learned through the archetype.
With RAW, since class archetypes don’t lock dedications, you can take Sorcerer. Assuming it gives all spells rage trait, proceed to grab the focus spells from your bloodline for maximum flavor and fun.
Sadly I’m not surprised they simplified it. I mean the bloodlines in 2e are basic already for a class dedicated to them. Maybe they could’ve given you focus spells based on each bloodline, but I can’t see them giving too much for a class archetype
@Iceblade269 The specific text from the archetype is "Spells in your repertoire gain the rage trait while you are raging". I believe this is meant to be read as "spells in your (bloodrager) repertoire", since this is part of the same ability that gives you that spell repertoire, and not spells in any other spell repertoire you might gain (since spell repertoires from each class/archetype are separate).
This also means that it will never apply to any focus spells, regardless of source, since those are not part of your spell repertoire at all.
I really like that avengers get ranger feats for dual wielding along with medium armor. It does a great job of letting you get the best of both worlds, while encouraging build diversity. Obviously being able to sneak attack with a deity's favored weapon opens up the door to some new strength rogue possibilities, but you now have access to some great aggressive action compression if you do decide to dual wield.
17:00 whenever I see that picture of her I remember the subreddit post about her simply titled “wife” 😂❤
This truly is a certified "Guys will see this [17:00] and say 'wife'." moment.
@@DanateDMC Gals too. She looks like a lesbian.
A Senechal is usually the busiest officer in any local SCA group. Just sayin.
I like how you're talking about the Bloodrager while Blood Rage is right over your shoulder.
Avenger looks like a fun option for a Red Mantis Assassin PC in Prey for Death. Especially since it gives you (auto-scaling) training in Sawtooth Sabers!
Exactly the first thought I had too
Ooo, that's true!
I'm currently playing the Prey for Death module and that would've been great!
(it's awesome as a monk now, too, but even awesomer)
The new bloodrager *is* neat, and probably fits the name better. But it also definitely misses the point of the original - the ability to cast a certain number of spells from *sorcerous bloodlines* while raging, maybe get some sorcerous powers like Aberrant long freaky arms, or claws, or a familiar. Now it's just pick-and-mix from two spell lists - with some weird blood-drinking and bleeding flavour, which feels really specific. I will miss the old bloodrager, i hope this one inspires people in new ways, but it feels like we lost something.
As for the Avenger and Vindicator, I basically agree with Ronald here. They took slayer, a flavor-neutral class with some divine options in its own archetypes, and turned it into *two* divine-specific archetypes. It makes sense for War of Immortals, perhaps, but going forward these flavor changes feel really limiting overall compared to the style of play we had in 1e.
I love the Inquisitor, i had an Osiriani Inquisitor of Pharasma character for years, and I'm finding very little support for making that character again in 2e. He's not a warpriest, he's not a rogue, he's not a ranger - he's a spellcaster with training in knife-fighting, medicine, and persuasion. Perhaps my intentions were a bit "uber-gish" but there's just not a good option for that playstyle besides a heavily archetyped cleric, which loses much of the "Judgement" feel held previously.
However, I'll still try and see if this new Vindicator archetype fits him. I'm always excited for new rules, even if I'm a pessimist about certain things.
@MrCoolioto I'm right there with ya! Some people recommended Thaumaturge to me, but it just doesn't feel the same.
Ironically, I had no interest in ever trying a 'Ranger' until this new archetype, haha.
I mean. I usually feel annoyed when people bring it up, but flavor is free. That Pharasmin sounds like it could be achieved with a heavily religious thaum or investigator with archetype casting. Exploit in particular feels very easy to give the flavor of divine magic/judgement. Do the same kind of flavor on the divine disharmony and you're cooking.
Maybe not cooking exactly what you're looking for, it sounds fairly specific, but cooking with something interesting at least.
Not too jazzed about thaums being pegged as these "placebomancers". I've always liked the read on thaums as "mages but not casters" If that makes any sense. From that lense, making them more divine flavor rather than occult flavor opens some doors for funky concepts I feel.
TLDR: A religious thaum would be cool.
Edit: typos
I haven't played 1e and that does look different which is unfortunate in that sense, but as someone who loves life stealing, gishes and power-at-a-cost concepts the bloodrager is my dream class. I used to play hearthstone and the gameplay design of Gul'Dan was my favourite, that's what it reminds me of
I liked the class archetypes, but I thought the way they tied them to the 1e classes was really weird.
The 2e Ranger is already a lot like the 1e Slayer, with Hunt Prey working a lot like Studied Target and also having the Precision bonus damage to replace the Sneak Attack. The original class did not have the religious flavor they gave the Avenger (even though the Iconic character did). The 1e Slayer was a d10 hp full martial class, so a lot more like the Ranger than the Rogue.
The 1e Inquisitor was a d8 HP skill monkey. They shared the second most skill points per level spot with the Bard and the Investigator, they also had every single skill as class skills and had bonus to some of them too. They also were limited to simple weapons and their deity weapon, so the Avenger is actually a lot more like the 1e Inquisitor than the Vindicator.
You also pointed out the difference in the Bloodrager flavor, which honestly I liked. If I want to get a bloodline on a Barbarian, I already have other options through dedications and whatnot.
Edit: I wanted to add that the Bloodrager actually feels a lot like Mercer's 5e Blood Hunter.
I really liked the 1e slayer, but a large part of the point of it was to make a fighter that worked.
In 2e, the Fighter already works, so it needs a different niche.
@jeffmacdonald9863 my group used go play on lowers tiers of difficulty, we were very casual, so we never really optmized on PF1e. I just got into that when playing the cRPGs, kind of out of necessity. I never knew the Fighter was that bad, honestly, and I always thought of the slayer as a urban ranger / assassin / bounty hunter that worked.
On optimization discourse, what I heard was that the Slayer came out in the same book a Druid Archetype that outclassed it came out too. That Druid Archetype that also got studied target and slayer talents. This is just what I heard, I don't know or remember that archetype in the PNP and I know it is not in the cRPGs.
Warrior of Legend gives me strong Cú Chulainn vibes
I think this was the idea, but then Exemplar gets a feat that’s basically his Gae Bolg
I was thinking the same thing, it very much has Irish/Gaelic mythology in mind
"[...]consume the blood lingering on your weapon..."
LoL
Loved it. ♥
I like Vindicator a lot! There's been some math done on Ranger around YTube on how your effective DC stacks-up assuming a 16 wis start compared to a full caster and there are some levels where your effective DC is actually higher than what a full casters would be! (Notable levels being 5, 6 and 9) For most of the game your effective DC is about the same as a full casters and their spell attack rolls can wind-up being the highest in the game, making them a really potent gish. I do however wish there was more of a reason to take Religion beyond trained as a skill outside of the Cleric dedication.
In that sense, the archetype seems really confused. Instructive Strike and Thorough Research are really powerful on a Ranger; people often forget that Ranger has some of the best recall knowledge abilities in the game between Monster Hunter, Monster Warden, Additional Recollection, Hunters Luck, Master Monster Hunter and Legendary Monster Hunter. These are all abilities which the archetype seems to want you to take to boost your spell attack rolls and synergize with the light investigator chassis the archetype borrows.
The problem however, is that the Ranger recall knowledge feats want you to invest in nature and not religion since Master Monster Hunter makes all recall knowledge's against creatures (what Vindicator seems to be going for) based on Nature. Plus, the dedication and interrogate feats feel a little too specific to warrant building around, especially if you want to worship a lesser known deity or you're in a game where you move about a lot.
Ooo, that’s a really solid point. If I ever run a game with a vindicator in it, I’m totally down with replacing feats and abilities from the base class that require nature to be substituted for religion instead. Thanks!
To me another part of the issue is that Master Monster Hunter is a level 10 feat, so depending on your campaign length your build-around isn't coming online until half to most of the way through the campaign. If the dedication feat was the ability to use Religion for all monster identification Recall Knowledge checks I think the Class Archetype would be a lot better. If there would be power concerns I'd argue it wouldn't be too broken as to Recall Knowledge well would require you to focus on yet another attribute (Intelligence on top of your physical attack stat AND Wisdom as your casting stat).
@@NXPhoenix3 100% agree on that point, Master Monster Hunter being so high levelled really hurts the recall knowledge chassis this archetype seems to be pointing you towards.
It's the same problem Outwit Ranger has actually, that part of the build just takes forever to come online. Now granted when it does come online it's absolutely bonkers since you can give everyone bonuses to attack, saves, and ac; and if you have additional recollection you can ID 2 creatures all for the price of 1 action.
It's one of those strange things where I understand *why* it's such a high level feat, but it being so high level makes it such an unappealing choice. Luckily, with the spellcasting boosting this archetype has going for it unlike Outwit Ranger you do have stuff you can do prior to that by just being a really solid gish, but it does still suck.
Elementalist is also an already existing class archetype for multiple classes :-)
Nice music at the end Ronald ^^ !!!
In 1e, you could take multiple class archetypes at once so long as none of them modified the same base feature. I think that would be a reasonable rule for this too, but I think the creators just really don't want to open the balancing bag of worms that that would be. Class archetypes are infamously broken in 1e.
Worth noting that avenger gets you crit spec with ranged weapon(so long its your deity's favoured weapon) which other rogues lack. (Might be able to get it from an archetype like archer? Idk)
If I am reading this correctly, the Exultant Blood Magic feat at level 18 doesn't give them spell ranks 7 and 8, but rather, gives you the Breadth archetype feature. Meaning a Bloodrager's highest spell rank is going to be 6th, but they'll have two slots for each rank in their repertoire. That's... an interesting choice.
Edit: Just out of curiosity, how would you rule a Bloodrager using Harvest Blood on themselves to get rid of the drained condition?
it was corrected in the errata now it says "Change the second sentence of the Exultant
Blood Magic feat to “You gain the master spellcasting
benefits.”"
@@lucamonticelli267 Yeah, I saw that Errata too but didn't mention the discrepancy here
I'm not sure that situation would come up? Unless one houserules doing 1 damage to yourself, I don't see how that would be desirable.
I refer to class archetypes as subclass++
That's quite accurate! Most of them involve requiring a subclass
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGI suggested counting all *class* Archetype feats in the discord as only class feats as they are designed to modify the class chassis rather be pure horizontal power which is the point of all other Archetypes in Pathfinder 2e
i wish we didnt lose the osiran gods :( my character was a worshiper of thoth and had a hole nation built around worship of him and now thats kinda upended that lore
Divine Mysteries has an archetype about pretending to be a Cleric.
Time to start gaslighting an entire nation
Yeah the thing with the PF1 Inquistor that I think a lot of folks miss is that it was the divine version of the Bard. Their chasis were basically identical, 'half-casters, 3/4th attack bonus progression, d8 hp, 6+Int skill points, and 2 good saves.' But whereas the Bard is built around using their Performance to buff their party, the Inquisitor is built around their Judgment to debuff enemies. But yeah, in much the same way the 1e APG gave us "divine Sorcerer" in the Oracle, it also gave us "divine Bard" in the Inquisitor.
But when you look at the end result it's a jack-of-all-trades class that uses divine magic to hunt down their enemies. Since everything but the divine magic can already apply to a 2e Ranger, it makes the most sense for the Inquistor to be a Ranger archetype that gets access to divine spells.
That being said, I've been skeptical of the need for PF2e to ever have bespoke class archetypes given the modularity of the classes themselves. The existence of the class archetypes themselves has always made the most sense as an archetype that only applies for a subset of classes. That's why they only showed up in Secrets of Magic, where they could make Archetypes that only apply to spellcasters.
I haven't been interested in PF2E/TTRPGs in a good while, but I'll be damned if a Bloodrager and Inquisitor don't get me hyped as hell
4:24 or allow you to use the free archetype slot to take the class archetype dedication and let you take a standard class feet at level 2 with your class feet slot
It’s worth noting that “only my doom may claim me” doesn’t specify the strike has to deal bludgeoning/piercing/slashing only, nor that the resistance only applies to those damage types. Which seems interesting.
it seems to me like vindicator is an inquisitor, exorcist, and monster hunter (who has some spells), while an avenger is a religious assassin (who has faith but no magic)
I wish they had made the urban option something all Rangers can take, its pretty lame that the only way to play an urban Ranger is to play a Vindicator.
At 3:48, I disagree with your interpretation of the language. Free Archetype states that the free feats are "extra class feat[s]), so I would interpret the wording about "you must choose its dedication feat as your 2nd level class feat" also applies to the free archetype feat
WoL is clearly Achilles inspired. Even the artwork is clearly playing up the armour design of the Troy movie.
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned something similar, but I have to disagree with Ronald about the idea that you can take more than one Class Archetype, simply for reason that you are required to take the Dedication feat at Level 2. There is no way to take two such feats at the same level (It specifically calls out that you have to take it at level 2, not that you can take the Level 2 feat at any time).
any plans to finish Abserd?
For warrior of Legend: there is a Kholo feat that lets you do 1 slashing damage to yourself to poison a weapon. I can easily see a Kholo warrior of legend using THAT to trigger the bonuses,
I think my main problem with both vindicator and rogue is that they’re wayy too restrictive.
Despite locking you into the archetype, they also you lock you into a certain racket / edge. Vindicator would’ve made Outwit edge much more appealing with the boosts from the archetype. Avenger Rogue would’ve been less appaling if you could at least grab thief, ruffian, or scoundrel
For Vindicator's Disrupt Opposed Magic, if the Strike is successful do you also roll damage for it?
I started running Kingmaker a few weeks ago and my group grab Jaethal for their party. Adventure says Jaethal is an Inquisitor and was sad to find that she is not a primary companion in the Kingmaker Companion's Guide so she didn't was up for helping the party in combat encounters
I've never played pf1e so i just went and made her a Cleric with Rogue dedication and I'll probably make up some story for her Companion Quest.
I wonder if I should maker her a Ranger Vindicator since she is an Elf afterall.
Wait, that Spear Dance feat seems *obscenely* good. Polearms are already really good weapons for fighters because of how well Reach synergizes with Reactive Strike, and it looks like Spear Dance doesn't have the Flourish trait. So an enemy that doesn't have reach has to walk up to you, either provoking a Reactive Strike or stopping at the edge of your reach and Stepping the last 5 feet, spending an extra action, and then on your turn you get to make two attacks (and have a third action left over for something like Demoralize!), stepping back twice-- meaning they now once again have to either take a reactive strike or step forward twice to be able to hit you again. And you even have a third action.
Admittedly, this mobility might not be as strong if the enemy has other targets they can go for instead, but if you're their only viable target, that gives you such an insane action economy advantage I feel like it outstrips any other special fighter attacks you could be using.
It is limited to Divine spells but it seems that Silence the Profane is stronger than actual Counterspell, with less restrictions and it costs only a reaction and maybe ammo for a ranged weapon, nothing as hard to replace as a reaction and a spell of same rank
I agree that you should ignore the 2 archetype dedication feat restriction or allow the class archetype to be used as free archetype
Was hoping for more spell casting, but still cool
I dont mind Vindicators not getting spellcasting, but they should at least be able to cast their deity´s cleric spells as focus spells, such as Sure Strike for Ragathiel.
Weird that Avenger lets you use Religion to track, but not to Seek your prey, being that those are the two skill bonuses you get from Hunt Prey.
I feel like the Inquisitor’s successor should’ve been a cleric archetype, maybe giving light armor proficiency and reflex boosts, plus a hunt prey action that interacts with spells somehow. I get trying to interact with the ranger, but then focusing on casting divine spells seems misguided for a martial
Discovering that Ronald wasn’t a mythology gay was a shock
Fellas, is your barbarian:
-dumb as bricks
-vampire-piston powered
-constantly hurling bits of metal at the enemies?
Then that's not your barbarian, that's V1 ULTRAKILL
To me the difference in vibes between avenger and vindicator is a vindicator is an official part of the church and a avenger is not something people talk about openly
Gouging claw is melee though? It doesn't say melee weapon/unarmed strike, just melee strike, so a melee spell strike should also work?
Melee or ranged are a different category than weapon or spell or unarmed.
Harvest Blood specifically requires a capital-S Strike, which is its own defined Basic Action.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Ahh Right!
I don't know how i so often forget that Strike has a special definition in pf2.
These all seem pretty cool, though hero of legend seems a bit limit and dangerous. Half level of vulnerability will add up pretty quickly and losing shields and armor will definitely sting. But people have done crazier things for +2 damage like take the barbarain dedication.
Vindicators Mark is a strange spell, it does not say what happens when you Crit and it lacks the Attack trait.
Vindicators gain their deity's sanctification, which applies to their focus spells' spirit damage. Avengers do not get sanctification.
I think the reason a lot of people get confused by the Avenger/Slayer becoming a religious class is because a lot of people fail to understand the following: Avengers/Slayers are Assassins. And the word for Assassin comes from the Order of Assassins:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Assassins
Ergo, whether we are aware of it or not, assassination has origins in religious conflict. Don't believe me? Look at the story of the iconic Slayer/Avenger, Zadim, whose backstory is of being a religious assassin for the Cult of the Dawnflower.
Also, the key difference between Avengers and Vindicators is the follow: Avengers hunt down the enemies outside the faith. Vindicators hunt down the enemies within the faith.
RAW, any reason the blood ranger can't siphon his own magic to get effectively infinite spell slots?
I think by RAW, there's nothing preventing that! The flavor text of Siphon Magic says "foe" however, and I think a GM is within their rights to prevent an exploit here
@TheRulesLawyerRPG Seems sensible. An alternative would be to keep a captured foe to bring along and harvest from as required. Like some sort of ambulatory blood bank.
Might need clarifying to only work in significant combat encounters...
Well, one reason you can't have multiple class archetypes is because you HAVE to take the 2nd lvl dedication feat... not sure how you'd pull that off if you have 2...
I feel like the normal restrictions for needing 2 more feats from an archetype don't really count for class archetypes, because it's literally impossible for one of them (Flexible Spellcaster) in which case, what would you do? Make it so the player can't have ANY other dedications? Seems silly.
I don't know how I feel about the Avenger and Vindicator archetype's having a feat tax... It makes sense for class dedications, since you get a ton of versatility, but those archetypes lock you off from just as many feats as they provide. At 20th level one feat isn't that big of deal, but at early levels which most people actually play, that's a pretty big ask for a archetypes which seem kinda clunky at best...
The Avenger also just seems poorly thought out at early levels - if you actually wanna take any of their unique feats for the first quarter of the game, you have to go duel wielding, but they also basically have to use a favoured weapon to get any benefit from their racket, which might not be one handed. And in addition, they don't get Deadly Simplicity? So I guess dieties with simple favoured weapons just don't employ Avengers?
The one thing I don't like about class archetypes is how they eat up a class feat slot. I wish they just worked more like alternate class features in Starfinder 1E. But I feel like these class archetypes tend to have enough tradeoffs that eating a 2nd level feat is unnecessary.
IM SORRY INQUISITOR!? YES PLEASE
FEED THE ALGORITHM
The idea is so that you aren't having half a dozen archetypes all at the same time.
im finding some of the language a little misleading/confusing for newer players who didnt play pf1.
Hmm... the bottom line is that class archetypes act like other archetypes. But they also are a way to customize your class: they substitute some of your class features.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I think in this case that it is more like a prestige class, of traditional D&D 3.5 systems: prestige classes always have specific requirements and always supplemented or directly changed class features. PF1E did a similar thing with their prestige classes, but I prefer PF1E prestige classes to D&D 3.5 in terms of balance and representation.
Just my interpretation of it all.
Avenger is a powerful class if your god favorite weapon is a d12 weapon.
Wait, so if the warrior is crit and goes down by his weakness. He becomes doomed 2 and dying 2; that means if you fail the next dying check you’re dead… Do the devs know how often we get crit in this game? Or better yet, how often I crit my players? And now they have no shield and no heavy armor? And you took away the choice for weapons? Am I the only one that thinks this fighter is bad? Maybe, if I could have a ranged option like guns, but hell…
Divine Class Archetypes would all feel even better if deities didn't have such piss-poor favored weapon options.
I played a vindicator, worst player character I ever played. Vindicator's mark is actually a 3 action, not two, since you need hunt prey first. If you fail in the spell attack, you are fucked. Since you need a complete round to attack your prey again, and there's no chance that enemy is going to be still alive with two or three other PC's attacking.....
This comment probably will be lost lol
But, could you make a Video About level 0 Adventurers?
Warrior of Legends seems kind of underwhelming and weird. It's clearly inspired by Achilles, but Achilles fought with a spear and shield, not just a spear.
I was disappointed with Bloodrager. Too be honest none of these are OP. I'm just kind of meh about the W.o.I. book.
John Witch, you are ex communicado.
Nothing prevents you from taking shield profiency at 1st level using a general feats...
Non-Human Ancestries say hello.
My opinion is probably unpopular. But I don't see why people were requesting for inquistor's return. That class in 1e was awful to play, your features were weak even at low levels, the class felt like it couldn't decide on what it wanted to be. Overall. That class left me with a negative impression of Pathfinder from a good while.
Also. I'm not keen on the changes to bloodrager. I get what they were trying to do. But all they're done is power crept Dhampier and vampire archetype for if you want to make a vampire based pc. The fact that you're forced into a blood drinking thing really messes with the flavor of bloodragers. Crucify me on the discord if you want Ronald. But imo. Pazio has BUTCHERED bloodrager. To the point I'd rather play the class in Bg3 via a mod. A harsh opinion, yes. But this is a class I hold near and dear to my heart. So hopefully you can understand why I'm not happy with the changes.
I am incredibly disappointed
Blood hunter was a barbarian with a bloodline, not a vampire barbarian. Slayer was a mix of rogue and ranger, not a religious killer. What was so hard to make these for PF2E? Yes, I can play a ranger with a rogue archetype or a barbarian with a sorcerer archetype, but that's not the point. When I read "bloodrager", I wanna play bloodrager. Not this.
If you want to play bloodrager from old maybe consider asking your GM to run a dual-class game and run a bloodrager Barbarian with a sorcerer? Could be pretty fun.
If the witch Archetype let you get rid of the familiar it’d be S tier.
Outside of the Avenger, none of these archetypes look all that appealing. Seneschal and Vindicator are okay, but bloodrager is disappointing (OG bloodrager was far more interesting IMO) and Warrior of Legend is way too on the nose with the Achilles myth, the name invokes what could have been a much broader idea, where as the way it is presented makes it effectively 'the Achilles Archetype' which is frankly boring IMO.
sadly the War of Immortals book has been a huge dissapointment and probably the worst book paizo has made for 2e
Yup, quality dropped. The 2 classes are cool, then, almost e everything else, starting from the dedications , is unplaytested, rushed and poorly executed.