Ex-Class Archetypes: What do we think of them?

[Xuldarinar]

Really, as the title.

Channeler of the Unknown, Planar Extremist, Sin Monk, and Vindictive Bastard. What do we think of these, both individually and in the broad concept of ex-class archetypes? Are there other classes we would want to see such archetypes for?

To answer on my end:

Channeler of the unknown has an interesting theme, one I could certainly get behind. I'd love to know who their adoptive patron is but that would defeat the purpose of it being unknown.
Planar Extremists actually to me look more fun than standard druids and inspired me to make a variant on that for Shifters when I saw the class. Not as powerful, mind you, but more fun.
Sin Monks are... There? They interest me and they would be about the only way I'd play a monk, but like the class the ex-class archetype is for they don't fully grab me. I suppose that is more of a monk issue than a Sin Monk issue.
And the Vindictive Bastard grabs me on basis of name alone.
The theme of ex-class archetypes as a whole I think are wonderful. Sure, they aren't supposed to be as strong as the base class, but they add a great deal of flavor and add an option for those who'd otherwise be rendered near powerless by (generally) an alignment shift.

I for one would love to see one for Antipaladins, though I suppose the Vindicitive Bastard could work there just as well as it does for an ex-paladin.



edit: For those who want a quick reference:

Channeler of the Unknown (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/archetypes/paizo-cleric-archetypes/channeler-of-the-unknown-ex-cleric-archetype/)
Planar Extremist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo-druid-archetypes/planar-extremist-ex-druid-archetype/)
Sin Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-archetypes/sin-monk-ex-monk-archetype/)
Vindictive Bastard (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/vindictive-bastard-ex-paladin-archetype/)

[Kurald Galain]

The theme of ex-class archetypes as a whole I think are wonderful. Sure, they aren't supposed to be as strong as the base class, but they add a great deal of flavor and
I agree with the idea. It is a good area and theme to explore. However, it turns out that these particular four archetypes do NOT add a great deal of flavor (they're mostly nonsensical and don't match the world-lore within Pathfinder) and are in most cases stronger than the base class (which is the exact opposite of their point).

Let's see...

Channeler is conceptually weird, because story-wise an ex-cleric of a god would be adopted by another god, not by some nebulous entity that otherwise doesn't exist and that we're certainly not going to explore. Mechanically it is silly that a cleric becomes more effective by falling from grace. Losing your class is supposed to be a penalty or at least a change, not a bonus. I would immediately ban this from my campaign for both of these reasons.
Extremist is conceptually weird, because it makes no sense that all four 'extreme' outer planes have an interest in disturbing the balance. Again it would make more sense to be adopted by a god of technology or destruction or something. Mechanically, again, it is silly that the druid becomes stronger by falling from grace (not that druids need the boost, either). Again, instant ban.
Sin monk again makes little sense conceptually. The sins are associated with the Runelords and Thassilonian spellcasters, not with monks and certainly not with non-lawful behavior in general. Since monks are not required to abstain from the seven sins, it is silly to expect ex-monks to become a "paragon" of these sins. Mechanically, these abilities are extremely weak (primarily because they last only for one turn). I can't think of a reason to take this archetype.
And the bastard is redundant to the anti-paladin; both are based on getting the exact same powers as the pally but while avoiding the literary archetype the class is based on; personally I don't like this combination. Bastard is, again, stronger than the paladin because his smite now works on everything and because solo tactics is very powerful. Another instant ban, by my reckoning. I do like the name of the archetype, just not anything else about it.


So yeah, I'm not a fan. I find it highly ironic that almost all of Paizo's recent material is weak, and then the material for characters that are doing something wrong is actually stronger. It feels completely backwards. I rate it 0.5 out of 4.

[Matthias]

I don't know that it defeats the purpose for an ex-class archetype to be as strong or stronger than baseline: in-game, they don't need to represent the typical outcome (or can even represent a temptation of power-through-corruption that people struggle against, as with Jedi and Sith); out-of-game, portraying a character's fall from grace can be fun character development, and I'd hate for that to be disincentivized too much - if the ex-class is roughly on par with baseline, that makes mechanical considerations less salient.

(IIRC, though, the designers did say their intent was to make them slightly weaker; not having a great deal of system mastery, or even having seen the archetypes myself, I can't say, just that I'm not sure that I would have adopted this design goal myself.)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Channeler is conceptually weird, because story-wise an ex-cleric of a god would be adopted by another god, not by some nebulous entity that otherwise doesn't exist and that we're certainly not going to explore.

I don’t see any reason why this has to be the case. I could see an ex-cleric as a prime target for entities other than gods, especially if there’s some grand cosmic scheme afoot.

Even without that, I can easily imagine formless things slinking around the corners of reality, waiting for that right combination of bitterness and despair. There’s no obvious reason why they can’t snap up lost souls without being gods themselves.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Mechanically it is silly that a cleric becomes more effective by falling from grace.

I’m not seeing that the Channeler of the Unknown is necessarily more effective than a baseline cleric. They gain access to a broader variety of spells, but they have fewer spell slots to use them in. Likewise they’re limited to only one domain, chosen from a very limited list. Maybe I’m missing something, but this hardly looks overpowered.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Mechanically, again, it is silly that the druid becomes stronger by falling from grace (not that druids need the boost, either).

Again, I may be missing something glaring, but replacing SNA with Summon Monster doesn’t seem like much of a boost to me.

That may be due to my long 3.5 experience with druids, summoning effective allies from the get-go while the party wizard struggled to find a monster that could even hit anything. Pathfinder may well have evened that out, but it doesn’t strike me as a major improvement.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Extremist is conceptually weird, because it makes no sense that all four 'extreme' outer planes have an interest in disturbing the balance. Again it would make more sense to be adopted by a god of technology or destruction or something.

I do have to say that the rationale for druids going planar extremist seems absolutely ridiculous. There’s nothing in that very small dash of flavor text that makes any sense as to why a druid, having gone off the rails, would suddenly gravitate to the Outer Planes, rather than just becoming a Nature’s Avenger or something.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
I find it highly ironic that almost all of Paizo's recent material is weak, and then the material for characters that are doing something wrong is actually stronger. It feels completely backwards.

This I’m inclined to agree with. As mentioned in the Ultimate Wilderness threads, Paizo’s last few hardcovers have been mostly reprints and warmed-over mush.

But there seems to be a general sense that the paperbacks actually have better-designed material than the hardbacks. Clearly mileage may vary.

[icefractal]

Why would you even want them to be weaker? For characters that can "fall", the usual result is one of:
A) That's the end of that particular character's story arc. They retire, and the player brings in a new character.
B) It's a temporary thing, and the character is redeemed within not too long a stretch of time.

If the point is for someone to keep playing the character as a fully contributing member of the party, then mechanically they should probably be on par with said party.

Sure, there are some campaigns where a power disparity isn't important, and some players who will be perfectly happy to play an ex-Cleric as basically a worse Warrior for the rest of the campaign. However, those are really the outlying case, and for that you don't need an archetype.

Also, thematically speaking, it's just as plausible for people to become stronger for going "dark side" as it is for them to become weaker. Both things happen in fiction.

[Serafina]

The Channeler doesn't actually lose spell slots - instead, you exchange one normal spell slot for an additional domain spell slot.
So instead of 4+1 spell slots, you'd have 3+2.
You also can spontaneously convert spells into domain spells, at the cost of not being able to spontaneously cure/harm.

How much of a drawback that is heavily depends on what spells your domain grants you. Given that you only have a selection of 5 different domains available, that's pretty easy to assess:
- Darkness has good spells at every level, including the highly flexible Shadow Conjuration, Greater Shadow Evocation, and Shades spells.
- Destruction has a number of decent offensive spells, which aren't redundant with each other.
- Luck has a number of useful buffs
- Madness has a number of useful debuffs
- Void has the most reduncancy - you don't really need Levitation and Fly and Overland Flight.

So assuming you pick one of the good domains here, you're pretty good. Preparing two castings of Obscuring Mist, Blindness, Deeper Darkness, and Shadow Conjuration is not a bad idea at all, for example.

Then you get an offensive, harmful channel that actually hurts everything - which is a strict upgrade if you want to harm enemies via channeling.
Likewise, getting any martial/exotic weapon proficiency can be an upgrade, depending on what domain/weapon combination you'd like.
And not having to worry about an alignment aura, and even having permament undetectable alignment, is another strict upgrade.


So sure, overall the Channeler is limited in terms of what playstyles the archetypes allows.
But if you want, say a Cleric with the Darkness domain and harmful channeling - well, then you'll almost always be strictly better off being a Channeler, rather than a cleric of an appropriate evil/neutral deity.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Serafina
But if you want, say a Cleric with the Darkness domain and harmful channeling - well, then you'll almost always be strictly better off being a Channeler, rather than a cleric of an appropriate evil/neutral deity.

Interesting analysis, thanks.

Now I want to throw one of these at my players. :smalltongue:

[Kurald Galain]

Here's the thing. Pathfinder already has clerics that have fallen to the dark side, and has had them for years. They're called clerics of evil deities. This is not new, this is not groundbreaking.

Likewise, there's already a class for paladins fallen to the dark side, and there are several archetypes for druids that don't like nature any more. These new archetypes don't add anything to that.

[ATHATH]

Why would you even want them to be weaker? For characters that can "fall", the usual result is one of:
A) That's the end of that particular character's story arc. They retire, and the player brings in a new character.
B) It's a temporary thing, and the character is redeemed within not too long a stretch of time.

If the point is for someone to keep playing the character as a fully contributing member of the party, then mechanically they should probably be on par with said party.

Sure, there are some campaigns where a power disparity isn't important, and some players who will be perfectly happy to play an ex-Cleric as basically a worse Warrior for the rest of the campaign. However, those are really the outlying case, and for that you don't need an archetype.

Also, thematically speaking, it's just as plausible for people to become stronger for going "dark side" as it is for them to become weaker. Both things happen in fiction.
This.

Also, from a game-design perspective, it is a horrible, horrible idea to intentionally make a weak archetype that no one would ever want to use for any reason other than its (default) flavor. If you want your players to actually, y'know, play your archetype instead of just playing a different archetype or the base version of the class and calling themselves "fallen", you should make it be at around the same power level as other archetypes for/of the class. This is (almost) "Stormwind Fallacy"-levels of stupid.

I expected better from you, Kurald Galain.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

In my experience, clerics RARELY ever 'convert' and switch deities, whether in a narrative sense in my games or by players. And I like Old Ones or whatever the Channeler gets, so that looks fun. Does the Vindictive Bastard still get spells?

[Xuldarinar]

Here's the thing. Pathfinder already has clerics that have fallen to the dark side, and has had them for years. They're called clerics of evil deities. This is not new, this is not groundbreaking.

Likewise, there's already a class for paladins fallen to the dark side, and there are several archetypes for druids that don't like nature any more. These new archetypes don't add anything to that.

Yes, because every paladin who doesn't live up to the standards of being a paladin anymore should have to flip to CE (or LE for one archetype's case) and swear themselves to a vile divinity. The vindictive bastard isn't for evil paladins. Its for paladins who stopped being righteous and really just care about what happens to them and their friends, and spans all alignments.

Druids who don't like nature anymore? ..What are they? This one covers the route of them transitioning from the nature of the material plane to the nature of the Abyss, Hell, Elysium, or Heaven. If there is one of that I'll concede that point.

Back to clerics, these are not that form. These are ones that deviated from one god and instead of finding a new one.. One found them and it isn't (most likely) one we already know. A cleric of Asmodeus or Lamashtu can go this route.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Pathfinder already has clerics that have fallen to the dark side, and has had them for years. They're called clerics of evil deities.

This isn’t about falling to the dark side. Faith in an evil deity is still faith. Losing that faith is the issue here, and it doesn’t automatically mean a cleric just moves down the line to the next evil deity.

Also note that the text mentions clerics who lose the favor of their deities. Again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the cleric simply switches to another deity. It would be strange if a cleric who was abandoned by one god decided to up and give his soul to another, no hard feelings. Broken trust doesn’t lend itself to that.

[Xuldarinar]

In my experience, clerics RARELY ever 'convert' and switch deities, whether in a narrative sense in my games or by players. And I like Old Ones or whatever the Channeler gets, so that looks fun. Does the Vindictive Bastard still get spells?

That is the subject of debate as some are in the camp of: If you take the archetype, you only get what it says you get and what an ex-member of a class would still have. Others instead say that: If you take the archetype, it is applied to the core class and remains.


Given that the Aura feature is called out by the vindictive bastard as something not gained, I'd side with the latter group. Which, of course, means that vindictive bastards still get spells.

Weird? Yes.. But it sure beats being an ex-paladin.



On a side note; It seems sin monks are the odd ones of this group. In all other instances, the class loses a great deal by becoming an ex-member of the class. Monks, normally, just lose the ability to advance. i suppose that the concept of sin, something associated almost exclusively with demons (as they embody them), sinspawn, and Thassilon, is a great motivator and tool.. Given that it lets them take monk levels again.

[Kurald Galain]

This isn’t about falling to the dark side. Faith in an evil deity is still faith. Losing that faith is the issue here, and it doesn’t automatically mean a cleric just moves down the line to the next evil deity.
Yes. And therefore, an ex-cleric should get different powers, not exactly the same powers from an entity that's totally-not-a-god, honest.

That's the point. Of course nobody wants to play a fighter-without-bonus-feats. But it's pretty lazy from a game design perspective (and quite ridiculous from an in-world view) if a "fallen" member has the exact same powers just with a slightly different description. Why on earth would a cleric-of-no-god be better at channeling negative energy than a cleric of a god who specializes in negative energy? Since domains are given by gods, why on earth would a godless cleric get more domain spells?

So good concept, poor execution. They've just phoned it in, really.

[Xuldarinar]

Yes. And therefore, an ex-cleric should get different powers, not exactly the same powers from an entity that's totally-not-a-god, honest.

That's the point. Of course nobody wants to play a fighter-without-bonus-feats. But it's pretty lazy from a game design perspective (and quite ridiculous from an in-world view) if a "fallen" member has the exact same powers just with a slightly different description. Why on earth would a cleric-of-no-god be better at channeling negative energy than a cleric of a god who specializes in negative energy? Since domains are given by gods, why on earth would a godless cleric get more domain spells?

So good concept, poor execution. They've just phoned it in, really.


To be fair, what about clerics who follow a concept, a philosophy, or something like the God Claw? Their powers do not deviate that much. These are simply clerics that their god no longer answer, but they still pray and conduct the rituals of faith.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
And therefore, an ex-cleric should get different powers, not exactly the same powers from an entity that's totally-not-a-god, honest.

Well, they do get different powers, in that they abandon their old domains and focus more narrowly on a new one. And they do gain access to a more varied spell list. Certainly not “exactly the same” as what they could do before.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Why on earth would a cleric-of-no-god be better at channeling negative energy than a cleric of a god who specializes in negative energy?

It’s clearly spelled out that the channeler isn’t channeling negative energy, they’re channeling “entropy,” which is by definition something else.

Now, it’s certainly a flimsy definition, and very convenient that it works just like channeling negative energy—but even so, they’re explicitly two entirely separate things.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Since domains are given by gods, why on earth would a godless cleric get more domain spells?

The description seems pretty clear: “...an unknown entity or force of the universe channeling its power through a trained and practicing vessel.”

In other words, spells and domains are how the willing vessel (the ex-cleric) knows to focus and manipulate the power it’s been provided. Rather than trying to teach the ex-cleric a completely new way of focusing that power, the unknown entity works within the constraints of the ex-cleric’s experience. This seems perfectly logical to me.

If that bothers you for design reasons, I suppose we have different perspectives. At the end of the day, I have no problem with a cleric receiving power from something that isn’t a “god” in the narrowest sense.

Out of curiosity, were you not a fan of the 3.5 ur-priest? Because that to me seems even more of a stretch than the channeler.

.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, they do get different powers, in that they abandon their old domains and focus more narrowly on a new one. And they do gain access to a more varied spell list.
They get cleric spells and cleric domains, just like every other cleric. And they worship something that's already on the "beliefs" list for clerics, too. So yes, exactly the same; lazy design at its finest.


It’s clearly spelled out that the channeler isn’t channeling negative energy, they’re channeling “entropy,” which is by definition something else.
Lol, do you even know what negative energy is? :smallbiggrin: Apparently the guy who wrote the book didn't.


it’s certainly a flimsy definition, and very convenient that it works just like channeling negative energy
Yes. It's like I'm saying "it's A" and you're saying "no, you're wrong, it's actually A"!

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, what about clerics who follow a concept, a philosophy, or something like the God Claw? Their powers do not deviate that much. These are simply clerics that their god no longer answer, but they still pray and conduct the rituals of faith.

Yes, clerics are already allowed to worship something that isn't a god (heck, Patfhinder allows you to be a cleric of demons and Great Old Ones, too, if you're so inclined). So that this archetype allows clerics to worship something that isn't a god is nothing new.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
*snip*

Negative energy heals undead, while the equivalent amount of entropy damages undead. Sounds to me like entropy isn’t negative energy.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
So that this archetype allows clerics to worship something that isn't a god is nothing new.

Do you have examples of other archetypes that give clerics access to non-gods?

I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’d just be interested to see them.

[Lord_Gareth]

Lol, do you even know what negative energy is? :smallbiggrin: Apparently the guy who wrote the book didn't.

You may have missed it, but Paizo errata'd negative energy to not damage constructs and has pushed the fluff idea that it's evil spooky death juice of evil anti-life bad evilness rather than entropic energy. It's powerfully stupid, and also the fluff basis for this division. You can find more info in the FAQ.

[Matthias]

I'm not sure it makes any sense for entropy in se, as we use the term, to heal or animate undead - a vampire is more highly ordered than a regular corpse in the same way a living human is, which is also why undead can (in the generic case) be attacked by swords and fireballs in the same way that humans can, and why copses don't naturally trend towards becoming undead as they decompose. You could certainly worldbuild a setting where the ground state of unordered matter is quivering undead flesh (badass!) but that's obviously not the baseline assumption.

TBH I don't actually have a satisfying sense of what negative energy is, but it seems it probably has to be somewhere in the ballpark of "some kind of anti-life energy," with all the vitalistic presuppositions that entails.

[Florian]

kinda getting the feeling that the ex-archetypes are not there for something that happens during actual play, but for creating characters after their "fall".

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Huh, I didn't know that positive/negative energy were... really ever anything else other than Life energy/anti-life energy. Though, if we look at stuff like the Huldan, entropy is more a function of chaos than negative energy, though the two are tied together.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Matthias
TBH I don't actually have a satisfying sense of what negative energy is, but it seems it probably has to be somewhere in the ballpark of "some kind of anti-life energy," with all the vitalistic presuppositions that entails.


Originally Posted by Ninjaxenomorph
Huh, I didn't know that positive/negative energy were... really ever anything else other than Life energy/anti-life energy.

Same here. The supposedly errata’d version, as anti-life energy, is pretty much what I always assumed negative energy to be. Maybe there was some conceptual shift from 3.5 to Pathfinder that I missed?

As for negative energy not affecting constructs, that fits here. The channeler’s entropy is explicitly described as affecting “unliving” creatures, separate from undead, so I assume this is a roundabout way of saying that the entropy affects constructs—thus further differentiating it from negative energy.

[Vhaidara]

Do you have examples of other archetypes that give clerics access to non-gods?

Right here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric).

This isn't FR, clerics of concepts and things that aren't gods are baseline, not the archetype-based exception

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Keledrath
Right here.

Can you give a particular example? Linking to a huge list isn't all that helpful.


Originally Posted by Keledrath
This isn't FR, clerics of concepts and things that aren't gods are baseline, not the archetype-based exception

Not sure I follow you here. I may well have missed a line, but I don't see anything in the general cleric description that indicates they draw power from anything other than gods.

[Matthias]

Can you give a particular example? Linking to a huge list isn't all that helpful.

Under "role:"


While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Matthias
Under "role:"

Aha, thank you. That is indeed the line I missed.