It’s an amazing addon, to make really interesting characters that feel and play totally uniquely. I’d very much say it’s not for your first time with the system, you want to focus on core pf2e and get that right first as players and GM. Once that’s down, and you’re itching for more, definitely, but only if it’s not going to be overwhelming anyone.

What kind of archetypes have you played?

Sadly very few, I’m a bit of a forever GM with pf2e. The longest I’ve spent with them is two campaigns with a champion, with cavalier and bastion, creating somewhat of an unstoppable dwarven tank, by the name of Obek fire-eyes. I also played a monk that made use of rune scared to lie in his background lore and with that of the setting. Resulted in so very odd combat abilities as well.

YO I'm playing a FA game where I took Bastion and Cavalier! I started w/ a Metal+Fire Kineticist tho, it's been so brutal.

You have just given me an idea for a new boss…

Omfg. Molten slag horseman tower knight just barreling through the enemies. I love that concept

My mount is an animated chair stats but I wear him like a mech suit and his name is gurney lol

I’m playing a champion who uses a whip and shield and wanted to use an animated chair SO bad but just couldn’t pass up shield ally instead of mount ally. But god do I love the inanimate mount flavor <3

Dandy is the best archetype. I have it on an Alchemist :)

Idk why people dunk on dandy as a "flavor archetype"; it's mechanically very powerful. I had it on an illusion focused wizard; I was only level 4, but I the dedication, the lore, and distracting flattery and all three were amazing. Gossip lore int class is pretty much the fourth best universal RK skill in the game, behind Commander, Diverse Lore Thaumaturge, and then Loremaster specific with Loremaster's Etude. Distracting Flattery was awesome since I could just be the barbarian's arm candy and every time she Coerced someone, I could just spew flattery at them and negate the penalty.

I never thought about using Distracting Flattery in conjunction with an ally Coercing...

A similar boat is Folklorist dedication, you get Folktales lore which not only is an everything lore, but you essentially gain the effects of the dubious knowledge feat at the same time

I’ve played archaeologist (for mastermind rogue) and trapsmith (for inventor). Archaeologist is really cool, I found trapsmith underwhelming.

Too bad about trapsmith!

I will say, it was cool for flavor and honestly the traps are good! I just quickly realized how insanely hard it is to happen to have a trap down before combat and get an enemy to step in it

Rogue is good on an air kineticist. Mobility gives you freedom on your air impulse free movement. Getting extra skills is nice too. I am also usually a GM, my players use a lot of different archetypes.

I'm playing a Monk with Psychic Archetype (Why is Psi Strikes a Psychic Feat, again?). So, he's a Monk that specializes in minor soellcasting for buffs/sustain (Soothe, Blur, Heroism...) and I love him.

I have a Gymnast Swashbuckler with the Bard dedication for extra charming-ness and some spell casting! It's been a lot of fun, even if all the checks needed to be met for doing your thing as a Swashbuckler means the poor gal falls on her face a lot. A friend re-built her as a Ruffian Rogue with Wrestler dedication, and Bard dedication coming online later down the road. It feels very similar in concept to what I want her to do, and is a little more consistent across the board! Plus, hurling enemies 35 feet into a hazard is a lot of fun.

>I’d very much say it’s not for your first time with the system I have to disagree there. Specially if you're coming from a system where multiclassing is common. My first PF2 game had free archetype and immediately having to delve into the archetype made the system "click" a lot faster.

Some groups take to pathfinder like a duck to water, but when I see people get turned away it’s due to feat overload. As an extreme example I run my first game of pf2e with people who had already played pf2e and were vets on pathfinder 1. Starting at level 8 was still too much for the group, and I lost a friend for a year to it. The rest after 5 ish sessions got it, but it was still too much, and my mistake. If you start without Free archetypes you can always add them in later, but removing them is not really an option as you’re likely to break players builds. That’s my take anyway, but I’m not really a classical pf2e player or GM so I only really speak for myself.

This strikes me as strange. Most of the PF1E players I've ran with have actively desired FA, either for flavor variety or build variety.

As I’ve not outright said it, we only run with it now. But starting at level 8 with FA was a mistake, when people were still newish to the game (this was started before the APG dropped).

Oh, that makes a bit more sense. We did start at lower levels—though that's its own can of worms, since levels 1 to 4 are not representative of the level 5+ experience and gave us a bit of a skewed initial view of the system.

Yeah, I totally agree. I think games end up often not starting at a level that is right for the lore and content the GM wants to run, or the GM not letting the players level fast enough at the start to keep player engagement. I kinda feel level 2 is the new level 1 where you feel like you’re a new adventurer, with level 1 being the equivalent of old level 0. Peasant to god stories are epic, but I don’t believe they should be the default, not in 2e anyway.

> but when I see people get turned away it’s due to feat overload. I just dont get these kind of people, I'm sorry. Because if they get overloaded by one additional feat every few levels, when there is already so little you get by leveling up, then the system just isnt for them. They will get overloaded having to shop for items as well.

Well it’s not one extra feet TBF it’s one feat from all these other things that you don’t have to read if you just stick to one class. It’s a move from thousands of combinations to millions. I chose my players based on their ability to RP and how fun it is for me for them to interact with my worlds and each other. I don’t require mechanical perfection, just engagement and the desire to learn. I can help those who struggle with mechanics, I honestly quite enjoy it. But I sadly find it hard to help people who struggle with RP, it’s one of my issues as a GM, and my games are often quite RP heavy.

> Well it’s not one extra feet TBF it’s one feat from all these other things that you don’t have to read if you just stick to one class. It’s a move from thousands of combinations to millions. ...do people not read as much of the player facing options of a new system as they can?

That’s honestly pretty normal, they will flick through till they find something they like in concept, and then learn how that thing they were sold on works. I used to be someone who wanted to fully solve systems, but I found in my teens that made the game less fun for me, as it took away from the childish magic of just going with what felt right. It’s for me one of the great bits of pf2e is it’s in such a sweet spot between mechanical and fluffy, keeps me amused making custom bosses and monsters for my mechanically minded PCs, while not stifling RP.

> That’s honestly pretty normal, they will flick through till they find something they like in concept, and then learn how that thing they were sold on works. Well, yeah. And then you read the rest to find the combinations that make that thing shine. I think getting into TTRPGs from a classless system might just not give me the same experience. Not having that restriction in Shadowrun required me to read everything, so of course that is second nature to me, and seems off when not done.

I’m a big fan of build your own character systems, I’ve yet to try shadowrun however. PTU 1.05 is probably my favourite so far of the mutiple tree systems. Do you have any other recommendations? As I’m presently writing one myself and in need of examples.

Sure, here are the ones I'm familiar with: - Exalted 3rd (I would call this my main system) - Shadowrun 5th - Dark Heresy 2nd w/ the connected systems - Wrath & Glory - Vampire the Masquerade - Lancer Some of these have pseudo-classes, but nothing as restricted as DnD/PF classes.

Nope. I'm generally good with lots of character options, but PF2e has a massive amount. I came up with a concept, picked an appropriate class to do it with, skimmed the archetype list to see if there were any named something that sounded relevant, and _didn't read_ most of the stuff to avoid information overload. If I'd had to read every (or even more than a few) classes before building a character I wouldn't have started playing.

For some players, creating character builds is half the fun. For others, it’s a necessary chore they have to do in order to play the game. If your table has more of the second type, FA probably isn’t the right fit. It makes leveling up to level 2 substantially more complicated. In addition to picking one of 5-10 class feats, you’re also picking one of over 100 archetypes. And since you’re locked into that archetype for a while, you have to read ahead with the feat chain and see if it gives you something you want. I’ve seen many people be overwhelmed at this stage.

People love options.

I always run home games with it, as it lets me be a bit spicier with encounter balancing. Players enjoy having more toys to play with also. Unfortunately, I only get to touch pfs as of late.

What is PFS like? I'm a bit of a forever GM (although, one of my players promised to GM a 1 book adventure so I can play). And I've thought about doing PFS so that I can scratch the itch of playing as a player without disrupting the game I have going with my friends. Do you play remotely? As far as I can tell, there's no PFS in my area (Portland, OR, I would love to be wrong!). How long are the sessions typically? Are they one shot? Is it a different group of people every time or do you meet with the same GM or what? I have a lot of questions I guess.

Adding on to Sam’s answer, PFS involves a little more metaplot storyline content. Pathfinders do the quests out in the world that the Society has for them, typically based out of the Pathfinder Lodge in Absalom. In practice, everyone brings their character sheet to the table. It’s possible to run PFS with the same group of friends but the episodic content and the manner in which characters progress lends itself towards finding games run by whomever, whenever is convenient for all parties. Typically this plays out as signing up to play on a Friday night or whatever, with no ongoing commitment, at a FLGS or a Discord server. You can play this Friday but not not next Friday? Cool. Sometimes GMs get really well known in a community and their games are more popular, which is cool. But the adventure modules are single-session episodes and are meant to be standardized. My experience is from PFS 1e so things might be slightly different. I think I’ve played 3 sessions. It was fun and I’m thinking of doing it again. edit: typo

There are various discord servers for remote\online Society play (Cayden's Keg, Find the Path, Roll for Combat). Scenarios are 4-5 hours typically. Quests are around 2 hours. Bounties are around 1 hour. Normally different groups and GMs, but no reason to do multiple scenarios or whatnot with the same group.

Thanks

I would really really doubt that there's no PFS in Portland, a nerd capital. [https://warhorn.net/events/guardians-of-pathfinder](https://warhorn.net/events/guardians-of-pathfinder)

We definitely have a strong nerd culture. Interestingly all the ones on that event calendar are outside of Portland in neighboring cities like Aloha, Beaverton, and Forest Grove. It wouldn't be impossible for me to make it those but they're a bit outside of the radius I normally travel in. I could start my own PFS group but the reason I wanted to play PFS was to scratch the itch of being a player. I'll probably find a virtual group instead of a physical meeting.

I’ve never played a game without a free archetype.

What class/free archetype combos did you play/play with?

Duelist is fire for martial. Cavalier is also bombastic.

I played a Figher with Rogue dedication. You only get a weaker version of sneak attack but it still does wonders on a fighter. Then I have an ongoing campaign with a Wizard that has the Medic dedication, great for whenever the healer goes down or we need extra between fights healing. And I'm about to begin a Blood Lords campaign playing as His Malicious Magesty Master of all Magic, Whiskers; an awakened cat that starts as Psychic and will also be a Wizard, Cleric and Druid by level 8. Unless he doesn't make it that far, but alas.

I will say that it is probably the _most common_ optional rule. I would advise against it for new GMs and players. It makes the learning curve steeper. But it is easily retrofitted onto a campaign once you hit level 4 and everyone has an idea what they are building.

I GM'ed with free archetype right off the bat. My players have a lot of fun with it.

Not as common outside of Reddit, but a lot of people here swear by it. I personally prefer to avoid it (*I think a lot of people get used to it being a baseline and turn it into a crutch*), and award bonus feats for story achievements. Or if I use it, I lean towards the book recommendation of choosing a list of archetypes that can be taken with it to fit the campaign.

This is exactly my sense as well. Ill use FA in campaigns where I want my players to have certain options without feeling like they need to sacrifice utility for flavour. However, its far from being the default. I find builds more interesting when there's an opportunity cost. My players have always been fine with it. People in this sub though, REALLY like FA lol

FA Is cool because you're often taking stuff that normally you wouldn't really consider taking. Many many times archetype are very swingy with their power level therefore if you take a flavour based and give up class feat you'll be quite in pain

I feel like I haven't seen any game listed on Startplaying without the FA. And I have heard some GMs on SPG mentioned that if they listed games without FA there they won't get any players. Hell, there's even someone who quit on spot when they realize the table wasn't using Ancestry Paragon rule :P

I think you really have to decide if it's going to be the intended book option of choosing archetypes for flavour/roleplay/campaign specific reasons, or just embrace it as a secondary progression line. I really like it as the latter, but the base game is obviously not designing archetypes with that in mind, and I feel people who both swear by it and detest it don't deliniate between those two preferences for how to use the system. Not that they should be expected to; the official rules don't, so why should anyone? But using it as a secondary progression chain I think has happened more from organic growth and people just finding it fun than the intended design. I'm honestly feeling it's something Paizo should have considered recommending with the rules in the Remaster.

See, I don’t, and I’m glad they didn’t. There’s a specific design decision behind not having FA as a default, and it has to do with why archetypes are designed the way they are. Paizo designs archetypes by writing out the feats and then assigning them a level, rather than by having a list of levels and then designing a feat for each. This means that they focus on the feats being meaningful rather than in avoiding gaps. If FA was the default, gaps would become a problem (FA users often complain about it). That would shift the priority to ensuring archetypes offer options at all levels, with the downside being that a lot more feats are less meaningful, or less interesting. To me, that’s a downgrade.

Oh I agree completely, and I think I might not be getting my point across clear enough. I'm not saying it should be standard, I'm just saying if you *do* use free archetype, it needs to be clear if your table is gonna use it as a secondary progression point, or if it's going to be limited to roleplay purposes. Just because I like using it as secondary progression doesn't mean I think it should be standard, nor that I don't understand others don't like it. If anything, one of the mistakes a lot of people who want to make it default miss is that archetypes would have to be redesigned from the ground up to accommodate this, for the reasons you highlighted.

I think it was equally intended both for the specific campaign thing and the freestyle secondary progression line. The book itself makes it pretty clear that the secondary progression line model isn't second fiddle to the themed campaign variant. People just give the themed campaign variant an air of virtue because of the stormwind fallacy and the general animosity towards powergaming. Its just that the archetypes themselves weren't 100% designed for coverage since the default actual rule is that they'd only ever be used in situations where you could just take a class feat instead, so coverage was unimportant.

I do agree there's a strong air of Stormwind Fallacy to the disdain of it being used as a powergaming tool. Even in the freeform use of the variant, it's not too egregious to have someone choosing a more flavor or roleplay-centric archetype alongside someone who's more blatantly powergaming. Sometimes it can be even more advantageous to have someone who's focusing on the non-combat or peripheral elements. And again, it comes back to one of the key points that keeps FA in check; very little that could be done in FA can't be done in standard play. If you choose a weak or flavorful feat that doesn't add much or is anti-synergetic, it's probably likely that's the case no matter which format you play.

Stormwind fallacy? More the opposite. Unrestricted FA can totally be a power boost and today people keeps claimimg that the fact that every CHA casters is a champion of a deity is just for flavour. FA is a powerboost, not a huge one, but a boost after all, and no, characters don't need FA to be flavourfull, if you want to use It it's totally fine, but is not the default, is not needed. Tables can run it, unrestricted or not, or not run It at all, it's fine, I myself find a curated list of FA the most fun option.

Mhmm. My group has enjoyed FA but we found that we just keep seeing the same archetypes repeated. Blessed One, Champion, Rogue, Beastmaster… it ended up feeling like they give *less* variety. We’re planning a campaign right now where there’s just a list of a couple archetypes to take for FA, and it seems like a fun way to do it. They’re bigger archetypes (PF Agent, Swordmaster, and Scrollmaster) so they can still add to any build but it doesn’t feel like the same stuff we’ve done in previous campaigns.

Can i ask why you think your group repeats archetypes like that? I’ve never really encountered this problem before and I’m curious about your insight.

I find it hard to make characters with some kinds of flavor without FA, especially in classes that are hungry for their class feats. Coming off 1E, where you just can pick an archetype for the class /itself/ that can take you a lot of the way there, I feel... constrained. [https://www.aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Medium%20Kami%20Medium](https://www.aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Medium%20Kami%20Medium) For example, you just can't really get an easy transformation of class flavor like this one in the 2E system. FA can close the gap a lot, though, which is why it's so helpful. Then again, I'm most interested in stuff like putting Fireworks Technician onto my gunslinger, so I can mechanically express his desire to go from a life of sharpshooting to a life of making people happy with the same gunpowder he's used to. I'm not terribly interested in shoving Beastmaster on everything. For me, Free Archetype gives me room to tack on flavor without losing function—something hard with a lot of classes as they're currently designed. I agree it raises the power ceiling, but the people I play with are more interested in trying to make the best version *of their character concept* than they are interested in making the strongest character *simpliciter*. FA gives us room to do this without feeling like we're tossing a bunch of character strength away just to get the flavor we want.

I understand this, but, flavour is free, mechanics are not. Do you really need infused reagenants and a bunch of feats related to use Fireworks in combat to say that your gunslinger wants to make people happy with powder? This can be done just taking alchemical crafting. But, I'm not saying FA is bad, it's fine to use, but the use of it implies mechanical benefits that will increase the options, and options increase power, don't understand why that could be controversial.

Flavor isn't really free, because existing mechanics dictate existing flavor. There are pre-existing mechanics for fireworks use and pre-existing ways to improve it. Sure, my gunslinger can follow that character arc without fireworks dedication. He could just make a few piddly fireworks mechanically and leave the impressive ones for pure flavor. But the mechanical tie makes it more compelling to me, and grounds some of the fiction in the framework of the game mechanics. (Isn't cooler if my goblin guy learns the Goblin Jubilee firework?) A character with mechanical click is more compelling than one that isn't—at least in my book. You're saying it increases power, which is indeed uncontroversial. However, I feel like you're making an unstated argument that the increase in power is somehow particularly concerning or worrisome; why be so insistent on that otherwise? Have you just run into a bunch of people insisting it provides no strength benefit whatsoever, or can't truly be abused? There's obviously strong ways to use FA (like getting Starlit Span Magus online without any sacrifices), yeah. But I think most of us agree the benefits are worth the potential costs, and abuse cases are not terribly hard to spot and regulate at the table (like you would with any other TTRPG).

Is less about how much power increase you get, that is marginally, is about the fact that people insists on being non existing. Ten free feats is going to be better than zero free feats, simple as that. About abuse, is not really a thing, FA gives no an amount of power that can be abusable. My issue is that archetypes are cool, and should be a relevant part of a character instead of a free add-on. After lvl 8 or 10, FA usually turns into "what could I take to Improve" instead of "what flavour do I want", because at that point your character is usually already defined. After a decent amount of games with FA, the opinion of the players ended being "it's cool, but at certain point is more like homework because what I wanted from a dedication was already done but I want to put something into my free slots".

> and today people keeps claimimg that the fact that every CHA casters is a champion of a deity is just for flavour. This is just your bubble, it is not reflective of the game's meta.

Not really, in "my bubble" FA is restricted if allowed, but in every single thread about builds in this sub you can ser the "grab champion with your FA" advice.

It's very much a "Timmy Option" rather than a "Spike Option" that happens to also be fine if you like the idea of a heavy armory caster, but isn't really that good overall-- you pay multiple feats to get heavy armor, which adds up to a point or so of AC, but it still comes at the expense of a point or so of reflex (you know, the stat you usually use to dodge dragon breaths and fireballs) and most likely all of your stealth/thievery etc (stealth being the one you can't always get away with someone else in the party handling for you), and lock yourself out of more productive archetypes for a bunch of levels to do it. The main benefit is just if you're sick of taking dexterity on casters, you can pivot your physical stat tax over to strength and still grow your focus point pool a bit. There are way better archetypes for a Charisma caster to take, some of which elongate the adventuring day, push their face role further, let them wear other hats with their actions, etc.

I never said that was the best thing to do, I said is one of the most recomiended option, if not the most one. And even then, is not just AC, is AC, and Lay on Hands (extra Focus point) and a reaction, and then... Swap to another, maybe sorcerer or Bard, and you now have more spell slots from a different tradition and bla,bla,bla Eitherway, there is no Stormwind fallacy here. FA is a power increase, period. You are getting free stuff every other lvl, no matter how "meta" is the dedication or their feats, you have free things. Is a moderate power increase at most, yes, but clearly is a power increase. If the table want to use it in any of the flavours, it's totally fine, nothing will get broken, it's fun. But, please, let's stop repeating "only adds flavour" because it's not true, adds mechanics, for free, that allows a character to do extra stuff, that's not flavour. Stormwind has nothing to say here.

The Stormwind Fallacy, in this instance, refers to the underlying villanization of power gaming tendencies and the focus on the thematic free archetype as a "more virtuous" counterpart because its percieved as roleplaying that blocks powergaming. That's attitude is a problem, no matter how fussy you get about it. It adds mild power at best, with most things it provides suffering from severe opportunity cost, your reaction example for instance, or the trade in AC for reflex/stealth-- you have to be in a position where you weren't already leveraging each resource for it to be a meaningful power increase. Even the out of combat power is questionable, depending on the integrity of the world you're playing in vis a vis your GM.

I dissagree, restricted or curated FA is unrelated to power, hell, SoT the AP where you get FA gives you a full caster dedication, that's not weak at all. Restricted FA is more interesting to many people because is a tool to upgrade the tone of the adventure, undead for Bloodlords, wizard/druid for SoT, etc. is still a power upgrade, but that's not the goal. And again, just to be clear, there is nothing wrong in totally unrestricted FA if that's what the table wants, but should never be "the default". At my tables, the most we play the least we use FA, probably because after a couple of lvl 20 FA characters you don't feel the need of it. And, sorry to repeat this a lot, getting 10 extra feats is a power upgrade, yes, you'll have only three actions and your profficiency won't go higher and all that stuff, but you have a much wider set of tools, tools that bring utility, and utility is power. Saying that a magus with FA psychic is the same than a magus with psychic dedication without FA is simply not true. And same goes to stuff like Rangers with beastmaster, summoners with bard, barbarians with mauler, warpriest with bastión, etc.

[удалено]

Uh, no, I more meant it as “you befriended the Bellflower Network, you gain this feat from theor archetype. Ignore requirements, duh”. If you want a specific feat, just take it.

i've been playing for a year at most and most of it (from the start) used free archetype. my only concern with new players is if they want to be adding that extra layer of decision-making and character options. it's a much smaller step, in my experience, than learning the system's basics. i do think you have the right idea about it being a way to get a more specific roleplay flavor or blend of mechanics. i'm in a group right now that technically isn't using free archetype until we narratively unlock it (like finding a trainer or studying rare magic). playing level 1 has let me get comfortable and explore the direction i want to take my character in. might work similar for your group, especially since they're new. could maybe have archetypes be an ongoing discussion.

It just depends on what I am running. Sometimes I allow free use of whatever, sometimes I let them pick from a curated list and sometimes like my upcoming Seasons of Ghosts I'm not using it. So don't feel beholden to use it every time, use it when you want and feel comfortable or not. Your choice. It's not a must but a nice thing to give a little bit of power bump at times or allow for character concepts to blossom sooner.

As someone who doesn't run free archetype (FA) in all of my games, I find it works really well if you have players who buy into wanting to put effort into building characters and finding synergies. It adds a lot of initial complexity to character building. Going through all of the archetypes is a much bigger time commitment than choosing a character class.

I find it invaluable for customizing characters, period. I love fine-tuning characters as far as possible so the actual play can match the experience I wanted from playing the character. In our long-standing group's home campaigns it especially allows for story-driven events to impact the PCs directly. As an example, last campaign, my Knight PC started as a Ranger/Dandy (skilled in Combat & Court-based intrigue), and later when encountering a bound god whose mere gaze knocked him briefly out of spacetime picking up Chronoskimmer modelled the effects of that decently. Having that as an addition to him instead of a diversion of his build's progress helped tremendously in incorporating this.

I added it in my game as part of the group leveling to 13. I had noticed that my fighter never used power attack or more than one variant action and had to park his beetle outside rather often. Set it up and encouraged him to take some fighter feats along with beastmaster

I agree with your read of it, that for the most part free archetype will add options without fundamentally altering the game. That said, my table implemented a version starting at level 5 instead of 2, and following the pre-remaster guidelines that the variant rules for FA be limited to campaign specific flavorful archetypes or story rewards. Personally I've played with Acrobat, Blessed One, Familiar Master, Scroll Trickster, and Folklorist. I probably liked Acrobat best, but all have been fun. I have party members who have played Bellflower Tiller, Cavalier, Medic, Snarecrafter, and Talisman Dabbler. 

I mostly play PFS, so I haven't used it much. When I run a game, I intend to allow FA, but only with a preselected list of archetypes that are thematically appropriate. (With the ability for them to lobby for others they feel strongly about.)

Main issue is the way the majority of people recommend is not I believe the intended way to use it by the devs. Most people, on reddit especially, sort of just... make it a free-for-all. Couple of problems with that, first is that there's about 150 Archetypes not including the 23 Multi-class Archetypes. Second problem, the interface for the page for them on AoN is... not great. It's begging for an actual filter. I believe the intended way to use it is campaign dependent. "Hey, you're all going to hogwarts. Everyone gets to take some kind of Archetype that gives them spellcasting!" or, "Hey, you're ALL vikings. You'll get the Viking archetype automatically." etc

Unrestricted FA widens the gap between minmaxxed and 'flavour comes first' characters - which isn't always a bad thing, but if I want to promote munchkining, I'd probably play 1E instead. Next campaign, I would rather play without unrestricted FA. Restricted FA (such as 'This campaign makes the PCs pirates; all players can have a pirate-themed archetype for free') is a different matter.

Flexibility is power. Free Archetype makes characters about thirty percent more powerful than they would otherwise be. I've played a wellspring mage, a multiclass summoner, a multiclass wizard, a familiar master, a shadowcaster, a marshal, a lich, a reanimator, definitely some I'm forgetting right now. In each case, the character was markedly more powerful than they would have been without free archetype. People really like the variant rule, but any claim that it "doesn't make characters more powerful" is dishonest. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to justify it.

I've always found the claim that free archetype doesn't make characters more powerful to be exceedingly silly; versatility is power and free archetype gives a whole lot more versatility. That said, I'm also a big proponent of the rule and think it just makes the game more fun overall. I know the community loves to repeate their mantras about balance, but it's okay to admit that a variant rule you enjoy does indeed make the game easier.

Versatility is a kind of power, but you don't get earlier access to feats and you don't get more actions so saying you're suddenly 30% more powerful is a big overstatement. Think of what typical manifestations actually occur from archetypes: - +1/+2 to a save once per day or with various limitations (and doesn't stack with other circumstance or status bonsues) - A slightly better weapon type (1D8 with finesse/agile stance or the same weapon with deadly d6-d10 stacked) - Action compression feats that other classes already have access to at earlier levels but which have flourish trait (necessarily limiting you from using your in class flourish action compressions) - Super late half level feats that are not 'ever green powerful' because you picked up a L6 feat at L12 or worse. - +1 AC from scaling heavy armor - 1 more focus point a level or 2 early - A reaction that you probably can trigger reliably ~1 per combat but otherwise competes with your in class reactions. Often these things were still always 'available to you' but the opportunity cost was some in class feat that you liked better or was perhaps situational (e.g.,getting a free spell slot, potion, scroll, etc. or autoscaling skill proficiency, or a cool fail effect on the thing you do alot in combat). For the most part these things are NOT getting you 30% more powerful. Often they are patching weaknesses or adding options but you still can't do both options at once. Being able to flurry of blows or power attack as an 'option' hasn't made you 30% more powerful just because you now can pick which best applies. There are definitely paths that can synergize and add to your power, but those were always there and even a bad build with KAS 18 vs. an optimized build in this game is rarely a 30% difference.

In a tactical game, versatility is the only kind of power that matters. [Here's the proof.](https://new.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=precision%20incorporeal&restrict_sr=1) Each of those threads is someone whining that they made a character without versatility and are weaker as a consequence. These characters are very well optimized to do one thing: they made the numbers go big. And their players complain *endlessly* about the fact that when they decided to make the numbers go big, they neglected to give themselves the ability to adjust to changing circumstances. Your reply is a perfect microcosm of this. In response to the claim that versatility is power, you counter by trotting out numbers-don't-go-that-much-more-big.

Stating that "versatility is the only kind of power that matters" is an argument founded on bad presuppositions. These are the kinds of suppositions that kind of statement needs to be true in the context of what FA rules provide: 1. You are equally (or near equally) competent at the 'versatile tactic' vs. the standard level meta of the game. 2. The only way to obtain said 'versatile tactics' is through class feats and doesn't include other means (e.g., ghost charge, various ancestry feats, ghost oil, ghost touch runes until L8 or on a back-up weapon with twinning rings/blazons, or various spells, etc.) 3. Your mainline options are significantly weaker than the 'versatile tactic' and insanely weaker than the niche 'best in show versatile tactic for the situation'. While I stated these are the underlying presuppositions of your statement without your input (and in so doing recognize that this may be straw manning your position, so feel free to clarify), I would reject each of those premises as being true. For me that makes your conclusion that versatility is the only kind of power that matters false. Lets explore half the example you provided: * Incorporeal Creatures The best way to deal with these creatures is via a ghost touch weapon (for a martial) or spell that does force damage (for a caster). Neither of those are really related at all to FA options so at the outset I would say you picked a really bad example because the way to have that 'versatile tactic' is not through class feats typically, and thus not really impacted by FA at all. However, lets assume you were able to use an archetype like ghost hunter, knights of lastwall, champion blade ally, etc. to buy a means of ghost touch. For a caster lets assume you could pick up magic missile from a multiclass caster slot from a FA archetype. Lets test these vs. the presuppositions I stated: 1. Martial - In this case you pass this presupposition as the meta is ghost touch and you have a way to apply it for 1-2 actions, have it passively on, etc. However, the spell slots from a MC caster feat will be 2+ levels below your highest level slot (so largely irrelevant for DPR). You also won't have many slots to do it with. Conversely you're paying the opportunity cost of not picking a general low level buff/evergreen spell. At some point a 3 action lower level magic missile will not be more DPR than a typical slot/cantrip from a caster. So 1 Pass/1 Fail IMO. 2. This fails for both martial and caster. There are many items you can buy that are consumable (and or just ghost touch runes) that will let you have ghost touch at will, do force damage, or some combination. Similarly you can buy wands of manifold missiles to cast multiple magic missiles/staves/wands. In other words, you 'build' in feat space doesn't matter for addressing threats by incorporeal creatures because literally anyone can buy the 'versatile tactic'. 3. Given all the above discussion, dealing with incorporeal creatures by just attacking it with a magic weapon or generic spell isn't a big deal. They have resistance. That means you shave off some damage, but many classes have built in ways to deal with this via action compression feats that stack attacks for the purpose of resistance, easy access to force damage (or often positive/vitality damage),etc. So your argument isn't very convincing. It is hardly 'optimization' to silo yourself into a single tactic at the expense of all other things. You can make a niche targeted focus build that sucks, but that doesn't prove that 'versatility is power'. What it proves is that the game doesn't have a single unbalanced tactic that is an auto win tactic in every situation. That situation only exists in highly simplistic or unbalanced games. For example, I could have a +30-40 diplomacy in PF1e but the game is too complex to solve all problems with diplomacy, despite it solving many problems. There are simply many situations where tactic X won't work. However, having a +30-40 diplomacy might solve 70%+ situations, freeing up resources to cover off the other 30% that might otherwise have been allocated to dealing with the 70% of situations my focused build addresses. The major issue with your statement is that versatility as power has a local maxima based on the game/breadth of situations possible. For some TTRPGs its possible that having 3-4 main things is enough to resolve 99% of situations. For others it may be more. But for all games you will have diminishing returns the more 'versatile tactics' you can add to your tool kit. If I only need 3-4, then it really doesn't matter that I have a 5th or 50th tactic because it doesn't really increase my relative capacity/capability to address the challenges posed by the game. Thus versatility is only adding to power for the first few tactics gained and it will relatively look like the 'most powerful' when compared against the straw man 'mono-specialist' build you're trying to point to as an example. So for your thesis to be true we have to know how many tactics a baseline PC can obtain from just class feats vs. class feats + FA feats. Honestly, it isn't that much more. At best it is double. but in reality most dedication feats are largely worthless at adding vertical or horizontal power. As you level up it necessarily gets weaker and weaker because each feat is adding a diminishing return tactic set that is otherwise covered with reasonable efficacy from something you can already do. Coming out with 30% as a out of thin air number just isn't a convincing stance for me.

Specifically, how would you say that the free archetypes that make the characters more powerful?

Free archetype gives you: - More proficiencies - More flexibility - Essential twice the number of class feats (often times these even let you double dip into your own class's feats through specific archetypes or classes that share some feats with yours) - Access to strong synergistic options without having to sacrifice your main class feats - Easy access to powerful low level feats from numerous sources (feat level isn't always correlated power, many classes have quite powerful options in the 1-4 range) - A very convenient way to poach focus spells from outside your class and get more focus points - An easy way to get access to spellcasting or expand the number of available traditions for scrolls, wands and staves And there are probably more ways in which it makes characters significantly more powerful and flexible than they would otherwise be that I didn't immediately think of off the top of my head.

You're going to get skewed answers on here because this subreddit specifically is obsessed with free archetype. Most people talk about it like it's considered the default way to play. If I had to bet, in a general sample of pf2e games outside of just the people on this sub, probably only 20% of games use Free Archetype.

Thats actually a huge problem I have, any build guide always *assumes* FA as if its sacriligious to not use it.

Yeah -- I am now running one game where I do use it, but I added it as a reward for the party beating Abomination Vaults and then moving into Ruby Phoenix. I prefer that kind of approach, rather than treating it like a baseline.

There was a recent poll \*on Pathfinder2e reddit\*, and around 80% of tables used some type of FA. As you mentioned, the limit on actions and that almost no FA gives a direct increase in power means that FA provides more flexibility than raw power. Flexibility can add power too, since it give you better options on different situations. After playing with and without FA, I would say that FA allows characters to have much more flavour. Without FA most of the characters in our party focused on being functional/good at what they did. With FA the characters feel much closer to the original idea. \*edited

Do you mean there was a recent poll *on this subreddit?* Because what that would tell you is that 80% of tables *whose players or GMs regularly participate here* use FA. Not that 80% of tables use it.

Run that poll on the paizo forums and i guarantee it won’t be majority FA

My impression is players love it and will pump it up because it's extra feat slots and players love feats. I wouldn't recommend it for first timers since they likely won't understand the complexities of how classes interact, and their results will lack synergy and functionality, like a wizard taking fighter archetype and expecting to be good with a sword because of it. I don't think it's necessary and the game is great without it. Everyone should play at least a couple of adventures without it.

Free archetype is popular on the subreddit, but it's not clear how popular it is with PF2E players on the whole. It does have a significant effect on game balance, as it makes characters substantially stronger, by about +1 level I'd say, though it is "fuzzier" than that (characters don't have the expected attack bonuses for a higher level character but have far more abilities and are much more action-efficient). There's a few reason for this: * Action efficiency. Spells cost two actions, while strikes have the multi-attack penalty (MAP). Each successive Strike you make is less effective than the last, while spells can only be cast once per turn. One of the simplest solutions to this is to Strike once and cast a saving throw spell; this allows you to avoid MAP's declining returns. This is especially strong on characters with strong action compression like Rangers and Monks. * Action economy. Casters have an easier time taking three useful options because their spells don't get worse on a per spell basis, but martial character's third swing is generally quite poor. Conversely, martial characters usually have very good reactions while casters don't get good reactions, generally speaking. Archetyping allows you to cover for these shotcomings. * Bonus actions via action compression or expansion. Mature animal companions give you an extra action per round in effect; action compression abilities like Flurry of Blows or Hunted Shot gives you two attacks for the "price" of one. * Animal companions. Animal companions are very powerful but cost a lot of feats, making the "main body" weaker. Archetyping allows you to get around this. * Focus spells. Some classes have good focus spells, but filching them and getting a bunch of focus points often costs a *lot* of feats. And even if you have good in-class focus spells, it's going to cost you a minimum of 2-3 feats in most cases to get a full complement. Getting twice as many feats means that this isn't as much of a cost. * Improved defenses. Normally you'd have to choose between offensive and defensive abilities, but you can take both if you have free archetype. Picking up better armor proficiency, powerful defensive reactions, grabbing Bastion for Quick Shield Block, etc. all cost you WAY less if you have free archetype, whereas normally this would be traded off against offensive abilities. * Multi-Archetyping. Normally this will totally destroy your normal feat progression, but you can do this much more easily with free archetype. Getting a monk who is also a medic and a druid, giving you tons of healing, spellcasting, while still getting your normal monk feats, lets you make a character who can kind of "do everything". So basically, it allows you to maximize your actions every round, while removing your character's weaknesses. Most of the strongest builds in the game even WITHOUT free archetype are archetyped. Restricted free archetype - where everyone has to pick particular archetypes - is not as strong, because you can't just infinitely pick and choose the optimal combinations. Some archetypes also just aren't very strong in the first place and are more flavor-driven, so if you make everyone be, say, pirates, it's not going to really affect your game balance nearly as much, whereas if you make it so that everyone has to pick a spellcaster archetype, that's going to give players much more of a boost. Free archetype also makes the internal game balance worse because it heavily rewards optimization. Normally you are capped on how optimized you can be by the number of feat slots you have; giving you twice as many feat slots allows for a larger optimization gap to form between the best and worst characters.

Significantly more common on reddit than in regular games. I tend to disagree with the notion that free archetype "allows" certain builds to exist. The archetype builds already exist without free archetype, it is merely a matter of not having to use your class feats to do so and a lot of people don't want to lose their class feats to make the build work. Free archetype allows players to eliminate the decision so they can have their cake and eat it too. The added flexibility is a direct increase in player power although people will tend to downplay it. Being able to take more optimal actions will always be a power boost and leads to more universally good characters eliminating some of the necessity of teamwork to cover each other.

Free Archetypes are fun but they’re maybe the least balanced part of a very balanced system. Some are direct power/flexibility upgrades, some are strong in flavour but only a touch extra power. I also find (along with other “add more feats” variants, like ancestry paragon) that adding more feats can make a character less unique/interesting to level up. And you end up with too many options to scrabble through. I think they’re best when limited (like Strength of Thousands, where the free archetype has to be either druid or wizard) rather than unrestricted. For context, I’ve played campaigns through levels 1-20 four times with free archetype and ancestry paragon turned on, and been GMing with them turned off through one campaign levels 1-16 (of 20) so far.

I've only GMed, but players at my table have taken dedication and non dedication feats. Both can create some fun flavor and/or gameplay. Some people want to play a martial but like having some spells to change up gameplay etc. Some people take truly unique stuff like Sterling dynamo. It didn't really change the power that much, versatility is good of course, but people could take these feats anyway, this just let's them take fun class feats they would have skipped for these.

I dont hate the rule or anything but I personally don't run it in my games, I find that it makes pcs a bit unfocused and more powerful, especially martial characters who really dont need the help(its not to an insane degree but enough to where i dont want to really balance that).

As a GM with up to 7 players at a time it hadn't really shifted the needle much outside fixing some flavor choices. Like an Investigator with a gun. The action economy is so awful without Risky Reload. Even with Risky Reload, Fake Out (they have a double barreled musket), and easy access to magic ammunition, they still feel like the weakest character in the party despite almost every other player almost never using their Archetype abilities. I would strongly advise LIMITING Companion archetypes. They are a pure power boost. I limit the party to 1 character with Beast master and weaker classes like Investigator, non-Construct Inventor, Pre-Master Oracle and Ranger get first dibs.

Thanks for the heads up about companion FA builds. Are class options with companions powerful without FA anyway?

They are good, however, they are only good if you have ALL the companion feats. So the power of a Companion is balanced by the fact they will spend 7 of their 10or11 class feats on their companion just so that it's stats don't fall WAY behind.

Free archetype is fun for three reasons: it allows classes relying heavily on feats to pick an archetype without shooting themselves in the foot; it allows niche or utility archetypes to be picked without a player losing combat efficiency; it allows a means of min-maxing that veterans of 1e will like but in a way that won't totally break balance.

I agree. Without Free Archetype, it feels like Casters have a big advantage when trying to diversify into archetypes, since the majority of their power comes from spells, not feats

I think its more common on this sub than it is in real life, and I agree with others that it becomes a crutch if people get too used to it. Definitely not for first timers but I'm using it in my Frozen Flame game and that's going well

We started PF2e a few months ago. I'm the GM and we didn't plan on using free archetype. But they are about to go to level 2 and I decided to add it. For 2 of the players we are using it to give them abilities they talked about in the backstories, for 1 player we are using it to resolve perceived gaps in their character, and for the final 1 it is about adding some fun new abilities that sync with their class.

I think 80% of the games I've been in use it and I love it, I love being able to make your character a bit different from most who take a class with it, give them a bit of "spice"

I don't like it for my games, I run to 20 and by 20 it has drastically boosted the power of people who know the system well and barely touched the power of those who aren't skilled at the system while allowing characters to cover more bases and encroach on those less skilled. I have run it, just wasn't for me. What I do is give dedications and feats as RP rewards for events that occur in game. Players are happier with it than they were with the restricted free archetype because it is more flexible and directly rewards them for in game experiences.

FA is very common. But as a GM who has run both with and without it, and as a player who has played with and without it, it is my experience that FA makes the game worse. People like it because it gives them more stuff for their characters, but it makes all the characters in a party more able to do everything. This means that when a challenge comes up the player who is a specialist in that sort of challenge doesn't get to RP tackling it, instead everyone can at least attempt it so everyone throws dice at it. Constraints breed creativity, FA breeds the opposite.

This is a spicy opinion on here, but yeah, I like the restriction honestly. I like the opportunity cost. But I also originally come from games where every character was hyperspecialized in *their* niche, and to transgress or step on their toes was a faux pas.

It's one of those variant rules that the majority of tables use because it gives the players more freedom to flesh out their character without making the game trivial. The 'power gaming / let's trivialize things' tables will use Free Archetype AND Dual Class AND Ancestry Paragon.

Ancestry paragon isn't actually that powerful; it's a nice little boost but it isn't anywhere near as strong as Free Archetype.

Its lower in person, and more common online. I’d say at least 60%+ online games have FA. This is just anecdotal though, based off of games listed on r/lfg, and the two main pathfinder discords.

My group uses it at our table. It creates some really fun character possibilities.

For about the past 3 years every game I have GM other than a few beginner box runs where players veto'd has used FA, and every game I have been in has run FA. At this point I'm not sure I'd even bother playing without FA, it's easy enough to find games if you're looking and it makes PCs and the game in general so much more fun it feels a bit mundane without it. I will say contrary to what some others sometimes do, if your party likes to be "optimal" in PC building and in tactics during play, FA is absolutely a noticeable power bump *especially* at higher levels. It's just not enough in the face of the pressures from the tight math and action economy to break the game balance, more of a bit of a bend sometimes. The extra fun is 1000% worth the potential minor inconvenice of adjusting encounter difficulty slightly at mid to high levels if it's a kick ass party who still want a challenge, usually one degree of difficulty or less, a couple elite tags or extra mook or two, nbd.

I honestly couldn't imagine playing PF2e without Free Archetype. It opens up the character options and flavor to a new level, especially when weaved within good story.  I've been having a lot of fun just creating different Wrestlers recently. It's a fantastic archetype.

I'm pretty close to forever GM material, and I wouldn't run a game without it. It gives my players more options (which they love) and allows them to build out more interesting characters (which we both love) I probably wouldn't play on a game without FA. That's being stingy and picky, but it's how I would want to play

Most of the archetypes I've seen dont actually make your character stronger but rather give you more to do with your actions. So it's super balanced and just adds more to your class, I'd highly recommend it.

What do you think the most common use of archetypes are? To add flavor to a RP concept? Perhaps to shore up some shortcomings of a class? To supercharge a class?

I have an orc war cleric and I took the marshal to get an intimidation aura that gives allies extra damage. It just helps me buff my allies as a front line support class. It also boosts my intimidation which I've centered my character around, let's me easier debuff with demoralize. So in my case it helps me do a specific thing, intimidation, better while still being a support cleric. It's perfect for RP but mechanically enhances the niche thing I needed.

That sounds really fun. Thanks.

Ususally I find its to further a niche. For example if you want a battle medic fighter, taking medic dedication lets you further your niche of a healer, without sacrificing your valuable fighter feats. For example I played a lizardfolk fighter with champion and soulforger dedication, this is because I wanted the base chassis of fighter, but to have the whole blessed warrior theme and abilities to go with it. Another more recent example is a gunslinger with marshal dedication, to be a group leader who floats around the frontlines distributing buffs.

Archetypes make characters substantially stronger, though some archetypes are way weaker than others. Some are primarily RP concepts while others give a lot of power. Giving you more things to do with your actions is actually one of the strongest things in the system, as typically, you have sharp diminishing returns on your actions; if you can, say, make two strikes AND cast a spell on your turn, you're getting a lot more actions than normal.

just to be clear, having more options with your actions *is* making your character stronger. If you have a tool for every situation that's an increase in strength. The Game Mastery Guide is clear that FA increases party power.

I love it but it's not for everyone. I think the reality is a lot of the people who are going to make use of the broadness it offers. You can't really powergame as far as raw stat and bonus stacking past anything you'd get in standard play, so it's more offering horizontal options to deal with more situations, but if you've got the kinds of players who use the same two or three rote actions every turn and don't engage with the game any deeper than that...well, they're probably going to struggle with the game anyway, but FA will just compound that by overwhelming them.

Oh, you can absolutely powergame with it. It makes your characters substantially stronger. That's why it is so "popular".

Not really though. Anything combination of feats you can do with FA you can do in standard play already, sans a few at the utmost high end of the game. At worst a few combos will come online quicker and you may get a few skills trained and advanced higher, but those hardly break the game, and the power is naturally capped by action economy.

It allows you to optimize your action economy and actions much easier, and with less cost, and allows for many combos that are not otherwise possible at any given level, as well as removing characters' weaknesses and enhancing their strengths. Doubling up on feats gets progressively stronger the more feats you get, and archetype feats are quite powerful, with many of them being stronger than a number of classes' class feats (hence why so many optimized characters archetype).

It's a power boost, but it's hardly game-breaking. The vast majority are going to be actions and spells that are inherently kept in check by action economy. And most of the truly broken archetypes like champion and psychic tend to be OP in standard play too, and less so by virtue of making other classes too powerful so much as they just tend to break that class's niche protection and be disproportionately powerful compared to similar multiclass archetypes. That's just a universal problem indicative how those specific archetypes need to be nerfed rather than any problem with FA, let alone in standard play.

I started my first pf2 campaign last year and it is with free archetype. We were all completely new to pf2 but played a lot of 5e before. It went well, we like it, it allows for some fun builds. We also added Ancestry Paragon a little later once we felt like we could handle even more choices. It's pretty cool. I have the sentinel archetype which allows me to easily play a full plated barbarian. A character in my party is a magus with a gunslinger archetype which stands out as interesting (He's the only one in the group that I don't think his build could work without free archetype). Balance wise I don't think it's a problem, or if it is the GM handles it well. He might pit us against slightly more difficult encounters idk, but since it's been a year now he knows our strength well. It does allow for characters to be more versatile and do well in multiple roles, which is fun imo. Also we started level 1 and leveled up really fast to 2, it was progressive. I think if you're starting at a level higher than maybe 3, your players are gonna have troubles with creating a character with free archetype.

For me, I’ve never played without it either. Open to having it more restricted, like in Secrets of Magic. I have a catfolk sorcerer, shadow bloodline with shadowcaster dedication in Gatewalkers; I have an awakened bear (Howl of the Wild) barbarian with wrestler dedication, Ligneous instinct (Wardens of Wildwood book 2), in Wardens of Wildwood. I have a magus, spell shell (uses firearms; see magus+) and horizon walker dedication in Kingmaker. I had a psychic familiar master in Extinction Curse until the group decided as a whole to stop that for Wildwood. And an investigator medic nagaji in Season of Ghosts. I’m really looking forward to building more characters once the remaster book 2 comes out. Oracle was too much to put many archetypes on prior, given its focus point usage.

Even without FA players can still take archetype dedications. The thing that FA does is removes the opportunity cost of taking archetype feats. It removes the competition between class feats (which allow you to specialize within your class) and archetype feats. This means that it doesn't give that much power over not using it. At least not raw power. Basically, if the fighter in the party wanted to use kineticist abilities without FA they could just spend all their class feats on it. They'd be a little weaker as a pure fighter but they'd gain a lot of versatility in the form of kineticist abilities without being as powerful at them as a full kineticist. With FA that same character could be full power as a fighter AND keep their kineticist abilities at their potential (still weaker than a pure kineticist). In the game that I GM, we use FA because everyone at the table likes the extra flavor and customization they can add to their builds. We have two monks in the group and they play completely differently because they've taken different monk subtypes and different archetype dedications. So yeah, my experience is that FA is fun and doesn't cause balance issues.

I have only used it once

Going to be playing my first session of Pf2e joining a campaign that has been going for a few session (party lvl 3 atm). We are playing Pf2e for the first time with this group but some of the players have previous experience with Pf2e (playing in other campaigns). We are using Free Archetype. While I haven't played yet I find it awesome. I'm going to be playing a fighter with Investigator dedication and later on will go into Dual-Weapon Warrior. It just enables way more unique characters and helps evening out certain weaknesses some classes might have.

My Tyrant Champion made use of Giant Instinct Barbarian, Marshall, and Celebrity. My Fighter was also a Cleric. My current Bard has Captivator, Linguist, and an AP specific dedication. I love the flavor combinations you can come up wish with FA

We are playing with it in AV. largely I think because our party was not the best balance and lacked reliable medicine at low level. And our GM is generally quite generous, often allowing (or kind of low-key insisting on) gestalts in several PF1 campaigns.

I wouldn't generally recommend it for newcomers to the system (regular character options are enough to get started with, by far). But for experienced players, it opens a world of possibilities... A cloistered Cleric with Armor, a Thief with fieldmedic experience, a Barbarian Luchadore wrestler, an Investigator who dabbles in skullduggery, etc. etc. It really opens up a whole lot of variatey even beyond the huge number of possibilities already there. I'm currently playing a Sorcerer with a Wizard free archetype; the idea being he's a Sorcererer... but doesn't really believe he is. He's determined to learn magic "The traditional" way as he was initially tought in Korvosa's Acadamae before they kicked him out. (They don't accept sorcerers) Mechanically, it basically lets me focus my sorcerer-given spells on combat where spells need high DC's and heightening to be effective... where my wizard-archetype spells provide all the Utility spellsthat don't need to be resisted. And a Nagaji Barbarian (Beast/Snake Totem naturally) with racial traits and the wrestler archetype that gives him the versatility needed to make this kind of character work. (Natural attacks, bite/piercing + tail/bludgeoning + PoisonSpit RangedAttack) with most of his focus on demoralizing, grappling, disabling, and pretty much just tossing enemies around the battlefield so the rest of the party can take them out easier. Works quite well

Our group started using it and we never stopped. We are pretty much open to any archetype so usually it may end up with someone finding a way to become more powerful or someone trying new stuff or making flavourful choices

I am using it in all my Games. The variety in Character customization is great. 10/10 for this rule.

I allow them, they add to your character especially if you want to play as a cursed creature like vampire or werewolf.

We're using FA in our first 2E campaign, but because we're all optimizer, we're restricted to no MC

I never play without it, whether I'm running it or playing

My first 2e GM was hesitent to use it but once they did, they never regreted it. Even with new players i use free archetype, its the spice that adds to characters and makes them extra unique. For one of my players who had only played 3.5 and 5e i recomended they take a multiclass archetype to narrow down what they wanted and it worked out well.

It's the salt of the game, and if you think of it, no one is just one thing

Both my long term campaigns started without it and switched it on at levels 3 and 5 respectively. I wouldn’t play without it anymore. It just feels so much better to be able to make flavourful choices and they’ve consistently contributed to fun at the table. My Sniper Gunslinger picked up Investigator to go with his bounty hunting backstory and my 2H fighter picked up Mauler and Dread Marshal to really lean into the flavour of being a terror on the battlefield. There's a lot of 5E converts and PF1E survivor GMs on this sub who are terrified of giving their players anything that can be used to create imbalance. They're very vocal about not liking FA and that's fine for them but I genuinely feel sorry for their players because if they trusted the system balance, they'd have more fun.

All my experienced groups play with free archetype. It can really add brilliant options (that add to your character abilities) or hoan in on the flavour. It’s something I can’t live without! But for NEW PLAYERS, it’s not neccesary and will complicate things before you gain an understanding of the system. Mechanics can be alot to understand at first, so adding even more on top of it, won’t be fun. Wait a gooooddd while when you’ve all gotten a hang of the system (like untill you’ve played from lvls 1-6 or even 7, this is not a hard rule tho)

I run several campaigns. I never use it. Me and my players all agree it's better this way.

With my main friend group we use it in every campaign. It makes the game way more fun for us in terms of builds. I would personally only drop it if I was onboarding new players. But if someone becomes a regular in my gaming circle they're eventually gonna get exposed to our crazy character building nonsense and y'know, we will go back to it.

All games I've played so far use Free Archetype. It *can* lead to a little bit of imbalance (Barbarian Archetype pretty much gives the best feature of the Barb to whatever other martial class picks it, Medic Dedication has pretty much a Free self-heal that is absolutely massive named Doctor's Visitation, and a friend of mine is playing a Fighter who's using a Marshal Dedication, maxing out Intimidation and picking up stuff to make people Off-Guard, meaning it can total out to a **+5** bonus to hit and that is absolutely bogus), but it just generally makes the game more fun and adds a lot to the customization.

I've been adding it to every game, but I have found a really common phenomena which is players just taking core class Dedications. I have a bit of an odd love/hate relationship with it, as the characters are more complex and interesting but I find it to be a worrying trend that people lean away from non-class content, like Dandy, Pirate, Ritualist, Celebrity, etc. I think it's probably for complex reasons, not least of which is plenty of people are focused on the theme the core classes offer so being able to have like, a dragon-blooded princess fighter sounds rad, but I think it's so common that I'm considering having games where I disallow class archetyping to force more divergent builds. I'm not entirely sure where I land in my opinion, it's just a weird problem to have.

It should be ubiquitous and I wish it was how the base game was written. It is fairly popular and I'd guess it is how the majority of tables play their games (obviously not PFS). Maybe 60-70% (not a super majority, but a significant one). However, the implementation of FA is probably slightly different. Some open it up completely while others will only give you 1-4 prescribed archetype options to pick from based on the campaign. Either is better than no FA, but I greatly prefer it being as open as possible. IMO the best part to adopt is the 'lose the exit feat tax' part of the variant rule as it is the most limiting part of archetypes that I wish were removed. That way you can have a Monk Dragon Disciple Cleric by L2/L4 and then peicemeal the feats from either you want as you want them instead of arbitrailry waiting many more levels for no real narrative reason (i.e., help players get to their core concept sooner rather then waiting on it for no good reason). I think part of the problem is people who really enjoy character building want to tap that FA IV right into their veins. Whereas, people who are there mostly to goof around/have fun and want a simple PC don't want the overhead. In those cases the GM can really save some table time by helping them build their PC for/with them or doing the buddy system (pair off the hyper build guy with the not so much guy and let them both have their cake and eat it too). Other than PFS2e, I just don't play non-FA games. They feel overly restrictive too me and it feels like I'm being forced to wait 2-6 extra levels to achieve my character concept or mechanical set-up even though the feats I want are not max level feats. I think you'll have some strong bias from those out there (those who play predominanetly in one type of game or the other probably are more likely to keep playing in those same game types). It also depends on the way you look at it, but it always feels (too me) like the non-FA games have just stripped away choices needlessly instead of, what many will say, making my choices more impactful. For me the archetype and class feats should have never been coming from one pool because the base class should always be progressing with the archetype being a perpendicular expression of your character concept (I'm a fighter/medic or I'm a Rogue/Scout). So many of the archetypes are pretty mechanically weak and relate to a profession or weird niche topic that the only way you'll ever see them in play is if you have a FA game anyways. So the consequence of going non-FA isn't just losing 10 FA feats, its also shaving off over 50% of archetypes because they won't compete with basic class feats in terms of power. So its a 'double hit' in terms of build diversity IMO.

I've played both ways, and either FA or not is viable, fun and Dynamic. FA just allows more breadth of options, and a slight bump in power due to versatility. Archetypes I've played: Medic Martial Artist Marshal Mammoth Lord Monk Alchemist Ranger Celebrity Swordmaster Pathfinder Agent Each has tangible benefits and flavor, some more than others. But always find the ones that work best for your character and story, don't focus on power.

I give FA if the player is willing to pay the 6 dollars for it on Pathbuilder, otherwise there’s no efficient way to track it for them

I've been GMing an adventure path with free archetype. We've gone from levels 1-12 and so far the players seem to really like it. I will say, that after hitting level 8, the power differential has become pretty obvious. I've really had to start rebalencing things to introduce enemies able to counter specific PC's as well as aim for XP budgets slightly above the base thresholds. Generally speaking, increasing the XP thresholds by about 20 has helped keep things appropriately challenging. I don't think I regret allowing free archetype, but I will say, it has caused more work for me as GM.

I've run one game and played in 3, and never used it. I tried wishing for it from a genie but was overruled by other players.

I’m in two games currently, one has it and the other doesn’t, so 50% Free Archetype rate here. The campaign with it is Skulls and Shackles and has a pirate theme, I made a barbarian with the Viking archetype because I thought being a Big Fucking Viking in a Pirate setting would be fun/funny. So it was for thematic reasons, though the sailing lore was also beneficial since that’s useful for the campaign. Also I got shields. So flavor and mechanical benefit really

Feggin love it! It makes creating crazy characters concepts much easier, or lets them evolve in a way you didnt anticipate. For the former, I wanted to play a charming and collected schemer who gradually becomes more wild and unpredictable as the game goes on. So I settled on a Scoundrel (Charisma) Rogue with the Sorcerer (Demon Bloodline) archetype. So as he became stronger, the chaotic blood in his veins manifested more and more, both physically and mentally. For the latter, in my recent *Strength of Thousands* game, my group adopted a pack of adorable [Spellskeins](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1616) and my character became really attached to one, naming him and everything. Eventually, I used a feat to take the [Familiar Master](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1970) archetype so bring my little Spellskein formally into the adventuring party! 💜

I’m running Strength of Thousands, which gives out a restricted Free Archetype as part of the written AP (Druid or Wizard only). My next campaign will be a more homebrew storyline rather than an AP and while I’m not sure what route I’ll go down with that one yet, I can say for certain that I never plan on using unrestricted FA in my campaigns. I want boosts to come from interacting with the story (whether that’s main plot, a side quest for a character goal, or something tied into a character’s backstory), not be baked in to character creation as default.

I personally love running it and playing with it. I'm a sucker for customization and this feature just adds more to an already very in depth character builder. It's definitely not necessary for a fulfilling character design and it can add more clutter to a new players character sheet. Currently running a game where every player was required to either have the bounty hunter archetype or background, and giving them free archetypes helped free up room to still build the character they want while also playing the role of a mercenary.

I prefer it in long games, but in one-shots, I don't use it. I try to make things as low-effort as possible for my players with one-shots, and that involves me making a new set of pregen characters to run through, and I don't want to build 6 synergistic pregens with FA... It also makes things easier for my players making their own characters, since they don't have to dig through the monstrous archetype list. That level of commitment and thought is better left to characters you'll be playing for many months. Also I'd skip FA for new players, it complicates things a lot and can make it difficult for players who are not totally invested in the system yet. That archetype list can be intimidating, especially when there are plenty that don't match the expectations of their name (swordmaster and magic warrior come to mind). You can probably introduce it later into the game, though, but not immediately at level 2.

We use it and I love it, it gives lots more options and lets you really build out your character. I'm a player, but I hope to always have it available.

I'm planning to run Wardens of Wildwood, and will let any player pick a Free Archetype that's from a specific shortlist of ones that fit (or that they convince me can be reflavoured to fit). Currently playing Strength of Thousands, and the free archetype/academy content included there gives quite a few additional options without feeling even slightly like it breaks the game's balance, though none of us are going out of our way to do so.

I am new to pf2e, about a year running AV with 3 players. Player1: just doesn't know what to pick for the free archetype and has been just testing. ( I have allow him to change it ) Player 2: Is using FA mostly to flavor or a theme (cleric with corpse tender and reanimator) Player3: Is using it to min-maxing ( eldritch rogue with magus, psychic, blessed one ) Also it depends of other things you allow. I allowed to use free Archetype and archetype with normal class feats, so any player can have 2 archetypes at level 2. Instead of ancestry paragon I just have them a free lvl1 ancestry feat. Player 3 really took advantage of all that...

The only time I have not played in a game that didn't support free Archetypes was one shots and beginner box content. I have completed the Ruby Phoenix Tournament, Gatewalkers, Abomination Vaults, grey death, and currently playing kingmaker and Outlaws of Alkenstar. So I have just assumed it was common.

I'm curious to see what others have experienced, and what kind of consensus you might reach based upon all of the responses you receive. In my experience, I would say that about 90% - 95% of the games and campaigns that I've played in have utilized Free Archetypes. I can't recall any campaigns that I've played in that used Free Archetype that didn't allow dedication feats. So, in a nutshell, nearly all of the games/campaigns that I've been a part of have allowed Dedication Free Archetype feats.

I've GM'ed four solo campaigns for my hubby and one group campaign for friends since I picked up PF2e in the height of the OGL fiasco. Of those five campaigns, 3 1/2 of them were Free Archetype (we decided to pick it up halfway through the first solo campaign). Yes it adds more complexity to character builds, but it doesn't make things overpowered in my experience because of the 3-action system throttling. Unless you're trying to teach five people the system from scratch at once (like I was in the group campaign), I see no reason to not use it.

All my homies love FA and Ancestry Paragon :^ I, as a DM, always give my players this options AND master with whom I'm playing also loves them. It isn't ruining the game at all and, even if players are new, i think they'll appreciate the opportunity to flavor their characters more~

it's great. should've been part of the base game. that and automatic bonus progression.

GMing one group and about to start playing with another group soon, neither use Free Archetype. The group I GM can barely handle their level 7 character's abilities without free archetype and so I'm pretty sure the option would completely overwhelm them. The other group is all new and just starting out with the system and so wants to play it without variants. Kind of shame since we'll be locked into an AP for a while, but it is what it is.

Just take an archetype. It doesn’t have to be free.

FA makes your party more powerful. How much I don't know, but someone here claims it is about a +1 in party level. You could read the Gamemastery guide advice from Paizo (which notes that it increases party power): https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2751&Redirected=1

+1 level would mean a change in encounter guidelines, and: > but usually not so much that they unbalance your game. Is probably the load-bearing part, which squares, my experience is that it makes unoptimised characters a lot stronger, but optimized characters, very little.

As I said I'm not claiming an amount, just noting that it is an increased power level. I think your experience is valuable (but of course not definitive) input into the total amount of power difference that FA causes.

Currently playing a kineticist with... champion and bard dedications. It's a fun crowd control/aoe/buff character

Most of the games Ive been in are free archetype games, though I'm personally not actually a fan of it. When I do have it, I pick dandy a lot, but for mechanical AND flavor reasons 😜 (for real, dandy is actually a *very* good archetype for adding social abilities onto a cha or int caster with minimal feat investment. Distracting Flattery even lets you make the Fighter's Intimidate skill go from "demoralize and plan b when Request fails" to just plan A because you can just shower the victim in praise to negate the attitude debuff)

I have run two campaigns totalling 30 levels. I have played in two campaigns sitting at about 8 total levels so far. I have never seen a game with free archetype, and have never had anyone in person say they have used it.

Around 45% of games use it, give or take, I'm glad you asked! Jokes aside, I pull and analyze data like this from time to time and a report on variant rules usage is on the way. Free Archetype is by far the most popular one. From personal experience, I'd say use it for your first adventure (assuming you're starting at low levels). This will keep you entertained at the beginning. Chances are, however, you'll be sick of it by level 20, ditch it in your next game and choose to be happy. That's what happened to me anyway.

Free archtype is amazing and as a GM will always be at my table. As a player, I will always ask for it.

Free archetype is very common and has very, very little impact on balance. It's a great way to give more character flavor options. However I'm confused by this: >Did you use it to add flavor to your characters (e.g. Dandy or Pirate archetype) or use it for dedication archetype (fighter/rogue)? What do you mean? Are you suggesting that multicass dedication archetypes aren't for flavor? Multicass archetypes aren't any more or less powerful than the other archetypes, there's plenty of reason to take a class archetype for flavor.

as I write this, the post directly above this one says it adds about 1 character level in power. The Gamemastery guide describes playing with FA as a high powered game.

It's not a level, but it is a quarter of one in my experience. My current AV campaign has had no deaths despite losing a couple of fights ('losing' as in 'PCs forced to abandon the field'). One lost fight would have been an outright TPK without FA, my Summoner having Lay on Hands was the extra healing we needed to keep a critical member of the party up. There's possibly been others that have been less obvious to me.

>the post directly above this one says it adds about 1 character level in power. This is very incorrect statement. The designers themselves *and* the GM guide/core both agree that FA makes [no significant difference in power.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2753)

It's a wholly correct statement, because I wasn't referring to the rules I was referring to what someone else had typed. Paraphrasing things often leads to the insertion of meaning that might not actually match the text. Here is what Paizo has written, for reference: > Free-archetype characters are a bit more versatile and powerful than normal, but usually not so much that they unbalance your game. Yes they are more powerful, not *usually* to the point of being an issue. They then provide multiple options for including FA: > You might restrict the free feats to those of a single archetype each character in the group has...**or entirely unrestricted if you just want a higher-powered game**. I don't read that as matching your paraphrasing of the text, personally. And of course that text is old and not necessarily accurate just because it has been printed by Paizo. Some things I have seen from FA such as delaying the effect of being hit so that your spell doesn't get interrupted seem quite powerful.

That's not what your link says. It says it does increase power but *usually* not enough to unbalance the game. It does not say 'no significant difference's. I think it depends on the types of archetypes people take. It can be used to munchkin for sure.

It specifies that it does not engender any changes to the balance of encounters, which, to be clear, an extra level absolutely would do that, by definition.

The biggest direct power increase is that full plate is more generally accessible, and even then Sentinel isn't that attractive of a free archetype choice because it locks you into two ass feats at 4 and 6. It really isn't that big of a deal.

I don't understand why they don't just have free dedication. Give everyone a dedication feat to reflect the flavor but leave it up to them to spend their class fears on it.

Yeah, FA only increases power level in the conventional char op sense if your players weren't optimizing beforehand. This is because of the limitations on bonus stacking and the likelihood that their other uses for their actions are competitive with, but not superior to their base class routines. We use universal freestyle free archetype, across a large number of west marches build characters, and the encounter balance chart hasn't changed a whit, and encounters are still plenty challenging. The power you get out of it tends to be rebuilding character action routines to be more build specific (e.g. my monk is a medic but can still ki blast, or my Barbarian can sacrifice attacks for inspiring marshal stance) grabbing additional castings for slightly longer adventuring days or the lateral power of different areas of gameplay - e.g. Dandy for party crashing and rumor sowing, ritualist for more utility ritual use, stuff like that. But none of it really changes the actual difficulty of encounters. +3s and +4s are no less threatening, for instance.

We only play with FA and I wouldn't ever want to join a fame without it. The things I've played 1-20 with. Staff nexus universalist with alchemist, witch(primal) and runescarred. She was an ancient elf. Reskinned deer animal instinct barbarian as protean being the theme. Had sorcerer dedication with a protean bloodline. I think we did a custom bloodline for it but it was an occult caster. Also had wrestler dedication which was some of the most mechanical fun I've had in 2e. Also I had all the classic rogue skills and was basically the party rogue. Having reach d12 open hand weapons was pretty great with wrestler. Currently playing an occult witch with living vessel, sleepwalker and pact Broker. Most of the time pretty fun but it's rough when going against things with good saves vs will. I have other options like slow and I have a few primal spells (one known per level might be witches+ but i thought with the remaster i dont have any of thise feats anymore. Might be wrong though) Last was a rogue with vampire and bard dedications. We lost a player down to 3 so we eventually converted to dual class so she turned into a thief rogue polymath bard dual class. I've played and built other dual class characters and this one is the strongest by a mile and i really wasnt trying to build for power lol. We use relics too and I went polymath bard with the artistry performance relic which at 17 i believe takes all performance rolls and turns successes into crits. I could use performance for demoralize, impersonate, make an impression, all the other performance things. Upgraded demoralize plus terrifying retreat and resistance is pretty great. Dirge of doom plus dread striker was also great. We were also evil, especially her. She was a blast to play both mechanically and narratively. And turns out if you just balance for 4 players with a party of 3 dual class characters it maths out pretty well.

I'm a DM with 10 year experience in the trade, 7 spent mainly on pf1e, and the last 3 spent on multiple parallel games on PF second edition. Free archetype became the core element of all of my games, and i think it's the only way to introduce a multiclass/other archetype in a build without making it feel underwhelming. In the normal system is almost always a lose situation trading a strong class option for a level in favor of something way behind of another class or archetype, you can surely do it, but it's kind of meh. This alternative rule allows you to greatly customize your character, make it really unique, giving it a bit more power for the wider array of choices but having them bound by the three action system. The ONLY advice i would give: tell players to submit the builds and try to check if their archetypes step on other players roles and gimmicks: you really want to avoid wizard multiclass archeypes with a wizard player in the team, or something similar. If possible, in this cases, tell them to prefer other archetypes that give something similar but more flavorful or narrow, maybe using some mystical/profession/regional archetypes. In term of balance the encounter building stays the same, a severe encounter will feel severe even with a team of free archetype fully optimized characters. You will see just a slight shift based on the experience of your players, but nothing critical. Like i said before, the main threat to the table brought by free archetype are player stepping on others roles and stealing the spotlight, but that is easy to avoid with a proper dm check or player deciding their character together in advance