I regard schemers as kind of a booby prize. If it's my child's two archetypes, it never gets picked. If it's one of two choices for a marriage proposal, it's a strike against that one. Maybe that's myopic of me. I'm interested in what others have to say. Here are my thoughts on the topic. I need governors and generals by the bushel, so it's a shame a schemer can't manage to connive itself into the former position. I'm not sure how much it is just me and how much it is the tech tree, but I am usually not even unlocking the spymaster until a few generations into the game. If that's by design, it doesn't service the schemer archetype well. And of course, it's only once you unlock a spymaster that agents are an option. And then not for a while after that until the spy network has been extended to foreign cities. Schemers have a courage penalty. That is a big turn-off for me. Only schemers, orators, and zealots have a malus. A zealot will wind up in the field as a general, where its awesome courage will overshadow its wisdom penalty. An orator's discipline penalty is endurable just because there are many paths to positive cash flow. With an agent, negative courage means negative training. Again, it might just be me, but training seems like one of the resources with a more delicate supply/demand ratio. Granted, you do get more science than you lose in training. So, it's manageable...Kind of. Just doesn't feel great. With a spymaster, negative courage means negative discontent. That is a red flag. The one role that seems made for the schemer is one that appalls me to bestow on them. Technically, it's just a -0.5, and the other available archetypes (scholar, tactician) don't get a courage bonus. Still, discontent is another one of those supply/demand ratios that be tight. And the schemer's wisdom bonus feels wasted here. It's bonus science, which never sucks to have, but it is just contributing to fungible pool. A schemer leader doesn't seem to have a standout, game-changing feature. I'm not going to feel like I'm better of waging a war with a schemer because it gets +2 orders. Use legitimacy to buy orders? That doesn't sound like something I should want to do. The big thing I'm curious about is the Adopt Child project. So as a schemer, I can have a bunch more children? Are the children legitimized, or do they start out as bastards? Some thoughts on possible changes. Agent: This is pretty straightforward. Some archetypes have bonuses that apply when they're general or governor, but nothing like that exists for agents. For this reason, heroes are well-disposed to being generals (and as they currently stand, are unlikely to be used as agents unless they're at a surplus). OTOH, schemers that can't find their way onto the council have only agent as an option. Why not grant them some "as agent" bennies? The schemer could get something like -50% mission cost, and bonus XP for successful missions (this helps you groom an agent to become a spymaster). Or whatever, you get the idea. For further parity, why not add strengths and weaknesses related to being an agent? .....OR just stop treating agent as if it were an analogue to the other roles. Let schemers be governors. There is actually a shortage of governor types that result in certain families not being able to govern their own cities (e.g. riders). Spymaster: Swap out the discontent modifier assigned to courage with the religious opinion modifier assigned to charisma in charisma so at least it's in neutral territory for all three archetypes. Then do something more unique with Wisdom than just a science modifier. Maybe have it add +3% chance to all mission's chance of succeeding with the best result (and consequently, -3% chance of succeeding with the worst result. Or have Wisdom modify the cost of missions (in money or civics) by 5%. Leader: Needs a potent signature ability. Maybe something like a mission that can flip cities with an agent at the cost of a whole lot of gold (maybe meeting some other criteria that offers a means of defense, like being unconnected, or having a governor that's upset with its leader)? Maybe being able to settle camped city-sites? Or pay to bribe a unit to take control of it (which would let you can just move the camper off)?