Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ArchfiendBobbie" data-source="post: 6972542" data-attributes="member: 6867728">I feel the design decision to have archetypes start off at later levels for some classes is reflective of the "zero to hero" design build for the game. I mean, obviously, you can't do that for all classes (someone who is part dragon is probably going to be that way from birth), but in general it does fit the feel of the power progression.At the same time, I have to agree it's extremely limiting, and as a result the archetypes cannot all be truly flexible or else you'd run out of new material very rapidly or risk eliminating the point of even having classes.I can kinda see why they're going so slowly in this. The design decisions that went into 5E have limited their options in a lot of areas. They can always release plenty of new monsters and setting books (as Pathfinder demonstrates, you can have eleven thousand setting books for one campaign world and still be a success), but that won't drive the game sales as much. And I think UA represents their struggle to keep up the output of new mechanics while still staying within the system they designed.</blockquote>