the idea of class Archetypes was developed from Paizo cribbing off of ACFs from D&D3's unearthed arcana, and also a bit of AD&D's kits.
I actually wasn't thinking of archetypes primarily. In PF1, a lot of classes gained selectable customization options as part of the base class (barbarian rage powers, bard versatile performance, sorcerer bloodlines, cleric domains and wizard schools now granting powers, paladin mercies and divine bond, fighter weapon training) or had the frequency that they gained these options and variety of options they could choose from increased (rouge talents, ranger fighting styles, monk bonus feats). Some of these are more minor than others, but there was a general trend towards more customization of base classes.
But then, if we really dig into it, one could argue that subclasses date back to the AD&D core book, which treated warrior, rogue, priest and mage as the classes and fighter, ranger, paladin, rogue, bard, cleric and druid, wizard and illusionist as subclasses.
Feeling powerful? Level scaled spells? An order of magnitude more options? Long lasting buffs, Summons, Undead creation, etc…
So, mostly you're upset that casters got nerfed? Because casters
needed to be nerfed. One of the problems with 5E is that caster's
didn't get nerfed. Those handful of things that you're complaining about them losing are completely outweighed by how many new advantages they got. Meanwhile, martials actually did get nerfed, so the divide has only grown.
Edit: one obvious example is to have a Clock that auto-fills each Round - y'know, like an actual clock would - and the party has to divert resources to erase sections of it. During a fight. Say, to prevent a ceiling from collapsing, or a ritual from being completed.
Maybe you'll have one specialist do a dedicated action each turn to do so, maybe players will take turns based on the tactical situation, maybe they let the clock almost fill up and then everyone erases a section at once rather than doing one per turn.
That's already structured differently than your typical skill challenge. Sure, you could say "that's just a skill challenge", but it clearly adds something.
I'm pretty sure that skill challenges with time limits like that were already a thing. That's how chase rules work in a lot of games.
Not dissing it. It is cool that they added a visualization to give players something to connect to instead of just some tally marks on a GM's notepad. But the mechanics don't sound especially unique.
(EDIT: Forgot to finish writing my reply. The perils of posting when I should be sleeping.)
3.x as opposed to AD&D 2E, actually - I was saying 3.x had, at least according to hearsay, actually leaned somewhat away from the more bonkers character concepts, probably as a consequence of wanting rules for everything.
I dunno about that. 3E had plenty of bonkers stuff. There was a whole book for playing as weird monsters that wouldn't usually be playable because they'd be OP. There was a prestige class that slowly turns you into a dragon. There was a prestige class where you ate meteor rock until you turned into a stone golem. There was a prestige class for being a were-swan. There was a prestige class for being so angry that you turn into a bear. There was a prestige class for being Jesus. There was a feat for necrophiliacs who fuck the undead. 3E wanted rules for everything, and they weren't afraid to make rules to anything.
Did Scion release five years earlier than Exalted 3? The latter's only ten years old.
Scion was released in 2007. Exalted 2nd Edition, the only version of Exalted that I've really looked at, was released in 2006. I was playing in a Scion game and looking at some Exalted rules in... 2009, I think?
