# Are any of the archetypes too unbalanced?



## MichaelK (Jan 15, 2012)

I've been running a core only pathfinder game, but my players have been eager to include elements from the APG, UC and UM books. When my current campaign comes to an end in a few sessions time, I'm thinking of having my next game include these books as well.

For anyone familiar with these books are there any archetypes (or other features/rule systems) that I shouldn't allow for being too powerful? I have my concerns about the Life subschool for wizards but I don't know how it would actually work in a game.

Also there seem to be a couple of class features that allow for auto-reincarnation. How do these work out in actual play?


----------



## Tinner (Jan 15, 2012)

I allow pretty much anything Paizo publishes in my game, and we have yet to encounter anything I'd really call broken. I'm a little leery of the summoner archetype that allows for multiple eidolons, but that's mainly due to the hastle of having that many units to keep track of in a battle. No worse than the Leadership feat really.

The important thing to remember about auto-reincarnation is that is is reincarnation, not raise dead or resurection. Be sure you read all the rules that actually apply. It's not a total get out of jail free feature IMO.

If there's something that worries you, go ahead and try it, but tell the player up front that it worries you, and you resrve the right to remove it from play if it turns out to be unbalancing.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 15, 2012)

Thanks Tinner, that's good advice. I've read through the reincarnate rules now (never had anyone use it in game yet) and I see what you mean, they're definitely not a complete get out of jail free card.

Things often look broken on the page that don't work out that way in the actual game (I learned that lesson with Mystic Theurge back in 3rd ed) so that's why I wanted to get other people's opinions.

I'll probably open the books up completely, except for a few that wouldn't match the campaign setting (gunslinger for example).


----------



## tylermalan (Jan 15, 2012)

I think the Summoner class itself is seen as a little bit unbalanced (too powerful) by some of the community.

As for the archetypes, I think there are some that are clearly "bad", which makes the others good by comparison.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 15, 2012)

Haven't seen all of them in play, but my general impression is that almost all of them-- except for the Monk archetypes-- are considerably and deliberately weaker than the standard classes.

Synthesist Summoner can be a serious problem, but I really think that whole class is a mess.


----------



## Dingo333 (Jan 15, 2012)

On average the archtype is as strong or weaker then the standard class

There are exceptions but nothing that makes the archtype overpowered. They tend to allow the player to really fit an idea. ex. Druid vs Storm Druid (storm druid wins out in spell power where as regular druid tends to be better else where) or magus vs Staff Magus (staff magus AC can get ridiculous once past lvl 7, even when compared to regular magus)

I think not allowing gunslinger (and the various gun focus archtypes) is a fine idea, but then again I am not impressed by any of them and don't like the guns anyway


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 15, 2012)

Almost all the archetypes are weaker than the original class, with a few that are decent.  Even in the case of the few that are outright better, I would not be worried unless it was on an already powerful class.  Even then it's not always worrisome.  Menhir Savant Druid is blatantly superior to normal druid, but the bonuses aren't major enough to break anything.  The only archetypes that concern me, iirc are:

- Teleportation Conjuror (APG, sort of like a "subschool" specialist): Conjuror Wizard is already crazy strong, this gets rid of the only not so great class feature he gets in return for 3 + Int per day *swift action Supernatural* teleportation!  It's like Abrupt Jaunt all over again!

- The gun mage wizard archetype (UC, forget exact name) - Overall it's an awful class for a Wizard 20, losing way too many good things for mediocre things, but it gets the ability to add the enhancement bonus of your gun to the save DC of your spells.  NOT just your wizard spells.  Making this a possibly too tempting dip for another caster.  +5 save DC sounds pretty awesome to me!

- Ragechemist (UC) - Broken in the opposite direction.  Read what it does carefully.  This archetype is so laughably godawful, I'd ban it just to save a newbie player from thinking it's cool and horrifically gimping himself.  On that same note, ban the Monk vows, especially vow of poverty.  That is the most horrifically weak trap option I have ever seen.  And it's especially unforgivable because any seasoned player can spot it for the horse dung it is in a split second.  But for a new player wanting to play the traveling monk/martial artist that abstains from material possessions, they won't have any clue just how badly they've hurt themselves.



tylermalan said:


> I think the Summoner class itself is seen as a little bit unbalanced (too powerful) by some of the community.
> 
> As for the archetypes, I think there are some that are clearly "bad", which makes the others good by comparison.




Summoner is as overpowered as you can get w/o 9th level spellcasting (*snicker*, they actually get 9th level spells, they just don't have to pay for greater metamagic rods to enhance them cause they come in 6th level slots).  Which...puts it about on level with Sorcerer, maybe slightly better just for the action economy advantages.



Viktyr Korimir said:


> Haven't seen all of them in play, but my general impression is that almost all of them-- except for the Monk archetypes-- are considerably and deliberately weaker than the standard classes.
> 
> Synthesist Summoner can be a serious problem, but I really think that whole class is a mess.




Most monk archetypes are weaker than the base class unintentionally. 
The only outright better than Monk archetype is Qinggong Monk, since it lets you pick and choose what to swap so it's impossible (barring poor decisions) to ever be worse than baseline monk, only better or equal.  But I did an analysis on QM and found it didn't actually add much of value, and the entire archetype was quite intentional to boost up the weakest class in the game, so it's not a problem at all.

Synthesist makes melee classes look pathetic since he can start off w/ all good stats high AC, multiple attacks, and pounce, and only get better from there.  But he forfeits the action economy benefit of having a Summoner AND an Eidolon taking actions, so i think overall it's weaker in the long run.  Maybe not right away when the Summoner lacks the spells and items to throw a spell every round.



Dingo333 said:


> On average the archtype is as strong or weaker then the standard class
> 
> There are exceptions but nothing that makes the archtype overpowered. They tend to allow the player to really fit an idea. ex. Druid vs Storm Druid (storm druid wins out in spell power where as regular druid tends to be better else where) or magus vs Staff Magus (staff magus AC can get ridiculous once past lvl 7, even when compared to regular magus)
> 
> I think not allowing gunslinger (and the various gun focus archtypes) is a fine idea, but then again I am not impressed by any of them and don't like the guns anyway




I hate the gun rules, they basically get to make tons of exceptions to the estabished rules all over the place and get away with it "cause they're guns!"  I would suggest banning them if you use UC, along with the gunslinger class (or you could refit it to be a crossbow shooting class, I suppose).


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 15, 2012)

tylermalan said:


> I think the Summoner class itself is seen as a little bit unbalanced (too powerful) by some of the community.




I think some of this depends on your players.

Some classes and archetypes are more open to extreme mini-maxing than others. As an example, in the hands of a strong power gamer the Synthesist Summoner with all physical stats of 7 who is ALWAYS wearing his "suit" may be an issue.

But a Summoner (even a Synthesist) played by a "normal"  player isn't really a problem.

So, if you've got power gamers caution may be in order (or may not). But for non power gamers I think that you can pretty much just restrict things that you don't like the flavour of (no gunslingers being a VERY good idea in my opinion )


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 15, 2012)

Can't give you XP yet for your comment about the gun rules in the Pathfinder. I'm a _Spelljammer_ guy and I *really* like guns in my D&D, but the special firearms rules in Pathfinder-- especially the Gunslinger class-- are just infuriating. They're not magic death wands, and plate armor in the D&D era was more than capable of deflecting bullets.

Hell, they let Monks deflect bullets with the Deflect Arrows feat. *With their hands*, and still they insist on this nonsense.

Honestly, just take the rules about making firearms attacks as touch attacks out and there's nothing I can see wrong with the firearms rules at all; they're only as unrealistic as everything else in the game, which is exactly how I like it.



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Most monk archetypes are weaker than the base class unintentionally.




My understanding is that all of the archetypes are *intentionally* weaker-- except the Qinggong Monk-- and the rare exceptions were accidents. The Qinggong Monk is outright better, but that's deliberately trying to make up for a very very weak class. (My Monk is better, too, in a different way.) The Hungry Ghost Monk can be pretty devastating in the right hands.

And I've got a soft spot for the Zen Archer, because it can actually do what it's supposed to be able to do-- the Monk stuff actually *works* when you can do it with a bow.



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Synthesist makes melee classes look pathetic since he can start off w/ all good stats high AC, multiple attacks, and pounce, and only get better from there.




Call me old-fashioned, I guess, but I really think the martial classes should be the best classes in physical combat. I don't like that some classes get pets that can replace entire other members of the party. There's a guy on Paizo complaining about the fact that Eidolons don't have enough Intelligence to double as skillmonkeys.

I'm just waiting for the class that gets a pet that has its own spellcasting progression.


----------



## Rampant (Jan 15, 2012)

It's called the leadership feat. Back in 3e my party liked to use it to get a healer cohort so we got most of the benefits of having one around without anyone actually having to play one.


----------



## Qik (Jan 15, 2012)

I agree with the general consensus: archetypes, on the whole, are not overpowered, often underpowered, and the benefits of customization are a huge boon to player creativity.  

There are of course exceptions: the Synthesist is certainly ripe for abuse, so I'd recommend you take a look at that and make a call on it.  As a base class across 20 levels, it's not too much to worry about (mostly for the action economy reasons SotS mentioned), but as a 1-level dip, it could potentially be abused.


----------

