The current archetypes are mostly too tame imo, and they actively destroy any hope for classes to get a fourth or a fifth enhancement tree instead (fighter and paladin would need some more distinction there, monk could need a more defensive one, etc.).Sacred Fist - Actually fine archetype, plays very unlike a paladin and the devs weren't afraid to delete the strongest tree there. Yet it was too early, as there weren't other trees aside from monk that would have really fit there. I like the Radiant Servant there, but Sacred Defender shouldn't be there. But there isn't a buff monk tree.
Stormsinger - Almost no work at the base class and even removing buffs from the general song was just because ppl like me complained. Caster bard was a thing before, and when I have one in my party, the only difference I see is whether my attacks proc lightning or not.
Dark Apostate - Idea is nice, especially with people like the Dark Abbot that shows the dark side of the divine. Base class does get some changes, but I'd prefered a more limited domain list to underline the theme. But while there was a theme, there wasn't a playstyle. The tree looks like 40% original, 40% that should have been in warpriest, and 20% of stuff I can't remember because it was so uninteresting for me.
So aside from the cure inflict auto-prepare, was there any reason to not just make it a 4th enhancement tree? Not like most people would have combined it with radiant servant (which is a tree out of time and would have loved a revamp). Enhancement trees can add spells into spellbook, and cleric is the prime example of it working. But hey, it's not like you could ban one tree if you put points in a specific other tree... if we ignore the sorcerer.Acolyte of the Skin - Aside from dissing Fiend Pact by making a "True Fiend Pact" (seriously, devs: Rename it to Demonskin Pact or something), this archetype is super half-worked. Why a beam if the focus should be to have demonskin on your body? It could have been a melee tree that uses spellcasting stats, but in the end it maybe makes three attempts to look like there is indeed demonskin involved and outside there is just a standard defensive tree.
Dark Hunter - That tree has a big identity crisis, as the only feature it seems to have is: Be a trapper. The tree adds a pet to it, which is like a kick between the legs of the much more iconic beastmaster ranger, which has been part of D&D for quite some time, but don't follow that theme. I guess adding trapper mechanics into an enhancement tree would have been too much, but the drawbacks of the tree are just too cute. You can get the most important FEs via universal trees and to counter that, medium armor proficiency was given (to a stealthy character that seems to want to use Dexterity) and evasion taken in return.
Blightcaster - At first glance it looks like it's exactly what it's supposed to be, changing class traits and such. Then you can think about it calmly and realize that wildshapes are multiselectors from the beginning. And then you could also come to the conclusion, that adding a blightcaster tree would have been enough on its own, using several bonuses only in specific forms, like the two wildshape trees... In the end you may end up like me for wanting to try it out, but feel kinda deceived of thinking of it as an actual archetype. Especially considering that Eberron does have a formal druid sect that specialized into decay and death, called the Children of Winter.
To sum it up: Archetypes don't follow their narrative enough with gameplay elements, and to be honest, all of them would have been better as iconic characters. I mean, Bladeforged aren't afraid to add some stuff to their paladin, but then the devs never made an iconic character different from other members of their class. Archetypes are following that trend.
There has been hope that classes gets revisited, mechanics get revised, and a lot more whenever an archetype tries to make use of them. This was also squandered, as we got a pet archetype without revisiting pets. Or a trapper archetype without revisiting trapmaking. What, they are the same!? But there was enough time to make several new spells for the druid, huh?
My wishlist for the future:
* If there isn't enough time to actually work out the kinks of an archetype, don't force them out. If it's in the game, a lot of people will see the additional hours that should have been spent there.
* Make more changes to what the baseclass loses and gains. That should be the main-focus of the gameplay design to strengthen the narrative, and from there you can go to the additional tree to add more to it and its flavor, while removing the trees that tie into the cut mechanics.
* Try to tie in Eberron lore more into several of the archetypes
