if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.Exactly. And that problem is that the Assassin PrC in the Pathfinder core rules is lame. Having ditched the spellcasting, simply making the assassin's PrC abilities into rogue talents would have been the logical next step. There's just not enough there anymore to call it a "class," much less a "prestige class."
Even though I dont think the assassin in the Core sucks...
I hated that they didnt get spells anymore and now that you say rogue talents as a replacement, that would have been awesome and made sense.
*sigh* oh well.
if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.Exactly. And that problem is that the Assassin PrC in the Pathfinder core rules is lame. Having ditched the spellcasting, simply making the assassin's PrC abilities into rogue talents would have been the logical next step. There's just not enough there anymore to call it a "class," much less a "prestige class."
Yeah as much as I hate to agree with you on this I do. Especially when they can't even assassinate someone at range.
It would be totally overpowered to allow Death Attacking at range.
Ask the Special Forces guys about that and see if they agree... or better yet, talk to a Marine sniper next chance you get ;)
It would be totally overpowered to allow Death Attacking at range.
I disagree -- especially if it were limited like sneak attack is currently. You have to hit, they get a save and you must spend three rounds in range to set it up -- not an easy task at any point -- even if put out to a 30 foot range it wouldn't be likely.
Someone doesn't know me very well. :)
Alas, irony doesn't carry well over electrons.
Someone doesn't know me very well. :)
Ugh before the post monster ate my post I was going to tell them you were definitely kidding.
Also if you gave assassins Assassin Perks every other level along with sneak attack and death attack then they could make their methods of assassination there own through the Perks.
Makes sense, not all assassins do it the same way.
One talent to grant ranged, one to reduce the round time, one to grant fast stealth, one to boost poisons, ect.
but I do like the original already so idk
It would be totally overpowered to allow Death Attacking at range.Better? ;)
yeah... now that you point that out I am kinda like... why not from a range haha
EDIT: I hope Paizo isnt trying to tell us Rogues (and skillish roguish characters) cant have nice things? Only ultimate magic and ultimate combat? where is the ultimate stealth/utility/better roguish characters stuff?
It would be totally overpowered to allow Death Attacking at range.Better? ;)yeah... now that you point that out I am kinda like... why not from a range haha
EDIT: I hope Paizo isnt trying to tell us Rogues (and skillish roguish characters) cant have nice things? Only ultimate magic and ultimate combat? where is the ultimate stealth/utility/better roguish characters stuff?
It goes missing every time they make a draft...
Answering an earlier query in the thread: the Roleplaying Game line (Core, Bestiary, APG, GMG, Ultimate Magic/Combat, etc.) are meant to be setting-agnostic for those that "roll their own" campaign setting. Excluding the GameMastery subscriptions, all of our other lines deal with our campaign setting of Golarion.
I think it's the fact you can technically do it all day long that is the issue. Of course, having to be within SA range is a pretty big limitation, and if it doesn't work the first time, you're not likely to get a second chance.
Edit: Whoa, twins.
you can do it all day long but basically once per opponent (that whole three rounds AND not recognize you as a threat is a real go F*** yourself in my opinion) plus it has a mild save (plus your 10 + int + level) which by that level (fortitude) is difficult to get anyone but a few people in the hierarchy dead.
Idk I mean death attack is cool flavor wize but seriously its almost impossible to do, its almost easier to just full attack with a sneak attack and try it that way than make the standard and attempt the death attack.
but then again I dont play Pathfinder for the prestige classes, I didnt much care for them. But the assassin was my favorite, my absolute favorite, and it loses spells and gets a few assassination abilities but then death attack STILL SUCKS?
atleast the spells made it easier to pull off, the special abilities are very ish to me, the one that reduces the 3 rounds you can only do like once or twice and its not til 8th level.
sorry, rant over.
poor assassin
Whoa, twins.
damn. now I have to change my avatar.
It would be totally overpowered to allow Death Attacking at range.Better? ;)
Now it all makes more sense. :D
Leave the platypus out of this, its clearly broken. There is even errata on it to elimate the ability to be utterly ridiculous enough to cause things to die on sight.I mean anyone that plays a platypus is playing the game on easy mode, and anyone that doesnt is a being stupid.
As for bears and hamsters, I think hamsters have the potential to be just as powerful as bears. Just my two cents though.
Let's not too carried away. You know the platypus is only ridiculous when you use the 60 point buy system. Besides, it really has to get past level 2 before it starts owning everything. And who is going to let a platypus live to level 3?
My preferred fix for prestige classes was to throw out the Pre-requisites. Players basically had to gain my approval by discussing it with me, and accomplishing whatever in-character goals were necessary.
I like organic character growth, and the idea of planning all 20 levels from level 1 just made me kind of ill.
Leave the platypus out of this, its clearly broken. There is even errata on it to elimate the ability to be utterly ridiculous enough to cause things to die on sight.I mean anyone that plays a platypus is playing the game on easy mode, and anyone that doesnt is a being stupid.
As for bears and hamsters, I think hamsters have the potential to be just as powerful as bears. Just my two cents though.
Let's not too carried away. You know the platypus is only ridiculous when you use the 60 point buy system. Besides, it really has to get past level 2 before it starts owning everything. And who is going to let a platypus live to level 3?
But a DM is totally metagaming if he kills a platypus before level 2 and 3. Levels are just a way to arbitrate power.
The platypus reigns supreme.
|
My preferred fix for prestige classes was to throw out the Pre-requisites. Players basically had to gain my approval by discussing it with me, and accomplishing whatever in-character goals were necessary.
+1 Lincoln. It's good for groups that know each other well, not so good for less intimate games.
My preferred fix for prestige classes was to throw out the Pre-requisites. Players basically had to gain my approval by discussing it with me, and accomplishing whatever in-character goals were necessary.+1 Lincoln. It's good for groups that know each other well, not so good for less intimate games.
This has some merit, I think. I don't mind prerequisites, but I'd like to see them relaxed so that someone who spots a cool PrC in a later supplement stands a good chance of being able to snap it up if it suits their character. I think that the assassin and the master chymist are both good examples of this. In fact, I recently realized that the alchemist I'm playing is easily going to meet the prerequisites for the former by level 7 or so. He may or may not take - I'm just going to see how the character plays out.
My preferred fix for prestige classes was to throw out the Pre-requisites. Players basically had to gain my approval by discussing it with me, and accomplishing whatever in-character goals were necessary.+1 Lincoln. It's good for groups that know each other well, not so good for less intimate games.
Agreed. I guess you could replace this with some kind of in-character training requirement... maybe one that wasn't skill ranks necessarily, but something that could give the GM some control without requiring the player to plan months in advance. You get the point though.
But, thanks be to pathfinder, most of my players actually want to run a base class up 16 levels... PrCs have all but vanished!
|
Actually, if you read anything by folks like Monte Cook on the subject, you'll see that prestige classes were very much designed to be very closely tied to specific organizations and groups within a given campaign world. That was actually the point of them. Unfortunately, because it was decided that the "sample" prestige classes presented in the core Third Edition rules would be more setting and specific organization neutral, people got the "wrong" idea and continued to make new prestige classes that were not as tied to groups.
The idea was really that individual DMs would customize and / or create new prestige classes specifically as a way to tie the characters more closely to his campaign.
I really like the archetype idea as an elegant replacement for many of the prestige classes. I'd very much like to see prestige classes go back to what they were originally intended to be.
Glad to see someone else remembers this. I wasn't certain if I was just making it up, since I'm still not sure where I read M. Cook talking on this subject. An old issue of Dragon, perhaps, or perhaps a blog?
Interesting thread, and I agree archtypes are superior for most purposes to PrCs. An alternative to either is a special feat taught my a member of an organization to another prospective member. Something that ties the members together without requiring that everyone be "X" class. I do like prestige classes for some things. For me they are good for a significant shift in profession / what a character does, from Fighter (front line combatant) to Captain (officer) or generalist Wizard to Specialist Wizard. Or Rogue (thief) to Guildmaster. I did homebrews for this type of thing. Not something covered by (existing) base class or multi-class combos but defining a difference in skills / abilities. My 2 cp.
*edit* Btw, for some organizations I can see (and use ) either a class or prestige class as a prerequisite.
|
|
Glad to see someone else remembers this. I wasn't certain if I was just making it up, since I'm still not sure where I read M. Cook talking on this subject. An old issue of Dragon, perhaps, or perhaps a blog?
Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.
|
Dang. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that:
Rock =/= Paper =/= Scissors
War =/= Peace
Tax Cuts =/= Balanced Budgets
Kirk =/= Picard
Left =/= Right, and
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt =/= John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
"One of these kids is doing his own thing, one of these kids is not the same..."
|
My preferred fix for prestige classes was to throw out the Pre-requisites. Players basically had to gain my approval by discussing it with me, and accomplishing whatever in-character goals were necessary.
I like organic character growth, and the idea of planning all 20 levels from level 1 just made me kind of ill.
Which is actually pretty much what I did, I didn't completely remove pre-reqs, I just make an effort to make them more reasonable to get into, Rarely will I use class features as pre-reqs unless its a specific dual class concept, I stick to skills/feats, and I try not to require something that would take a player more than a level or two to get, so that when someone in a game I'm in wants to get a PrC they usually can with their next level up.
It's also easier since I mostly custom build PrCs anyways to reflect what's been going on in game, I usually make pre-reqs stuff the players already have anyways.
Many of the PrCs presented in Pathfinder materials that I have seen so far have continued this tradition, and I applaud the choice. However, having recently picked up the APG, I noticed there were a lot more "generic" PrCs that did not specifically tie to the world of Golarion. Which is funny, considering that in the same book you've managed to present the perfect solution to specialist PrCs: alternate class features. By allowing players to choose a schtick at first level, this demolishes the need for PrCs that allow players to craft characters that fit a certain subtype.
Anyways, I wanted to let you know that, as a customer, I do not support the creation of more "generic" PrCs. I understand that there is a market for them, but they hold no interest for me.
Same here.
I highly prefer the alternate class features - they remind me of kits in a way.
Pretty much but it was still fun and close and you missed an important part -- everything is supposed to have at least a rough balance -- if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but for me, the red mantis assassin shields itself in #27 of the RPG Superstar Auto Reject Rules -- anything that is awesome enough gets to break the rules.
People with sawtooth sabres who turn into mantises, I can't quit you.
Pretty much but it was still fun and close and you missed an important part -- everything is supposed to have at least a rough balance -- if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.Ordinarily I would agree with you, but for me, the red mantis assassin shields itself in #27 of the RPG Superstar Auto Reject Rules -- anything that is awesome enough gets to break the rules.
People with sawtooth sabres who turn into mantises, I can't quit you.
Ok...which book is this PrC in. It sounds cool.
Is there a snippet of it anywhere I wont have to buy a book to see it?
Pretty much but it was still fun and close and you missed an important part -- everything is supposed to have at least a rough balance -- if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.Ordinarily I would agree with you, but for me, the red mantis assassin shields itself in #27 of the RPG Superstar Auto Reject Rules -- anything that is awesome enough gets to break the rules.
People with sawtooth sabres who turn into mantises, I can't quit you.
Ok...which book is this PrC in. It sounds cool.
Is there a snippet of it anywhere I wont have to buy a book to see it?
It was in one of the CoCT AP adventures (AP #9 to be specific).
Ok...which book is this PrC in. It sounds cool.
Is there a snippet of it anywhere I wont have to buy a book to see it?
The art for it in the adventure path is part of what sells it (and isn't here), but: here
Agreed. The biggest problem was that most PrCs weren't something you could decide to work towards later, you had to plan on it from the very start, otherwise you'd have to wait 3 or 4 levels to enter due to feat and skill requirements.
I never considered this a problem. So you need to invest a little more time in development before you can learn the secrets of the new prestige class, so what? The prestige class is still there when you are ready for it. That's what I always tried to impress on my players.
I think there have been too many people obsessing over build efficiency. They need to relax more and let things develop.
I still like prestige classes. I think they fill a somewhat different niche from different archetypes and both can enrich a game if handled well.
|
Would you like to know why I like 3.5 D&D more then pathfinder? Because sitting on my table next to my D&D books is a stack of characters 100 pages thick. Not one of them resembles any other one. I have spiderman, batman, captian america, the hulk, a grappler, a mind controller... the list goes on for ever. You name an iconic character from any movie comic book or video game and I can make them.
V1 was bland, V2 wasent any better, but V3 and 3.5 gave you choice. Now with that choice came people who care more about power then concept, but that really has nothing to do with these forums does it? It is written that each dm TALK with their players. That's where game balance comes in. That's Where choice comes into play. If you don't like something that's fine, But being overly derogritory towards a different way of thinking gets people into trouble lol as history shows us.
I personally will not be using "pathfinder only" material until they increase the number of options that I have for making characters. I like playing unique characters and in this game I only have prestige classes to do that.so please pathfinder release more then just varients for base classes.
*edit* befor I get banned lol, I just want to say that pathfinder is a better system. They fixed 90% of the short commings with rules and mechanics that I hated in D&D. Very happy I. Picked up these book.
Would you like to know why I like 3.5 D&D more then pathfinder? Because sitting on my table next to my D&D books is a stack of characters 100 pages thick. Not one of them resembles any other one. I have spiderman, batman, captian america, the hulk, a grappler, a mind controller... the list goes on for ever. You name an iconic character from any movie comic book or video game and I can make them.
V1 was bland, V2 wasent any better, but V3 and 3.5 gave you choice. Now with that choice came people who care more about power then concept, but that really has nothing to do with these forums does it? It is written that each dm TALK with their players. That's where game balance comes in. That's Where choice comes into play. If you don't like something that's fine, But being overly derogritory towards a different way of thinking gets people into trouble lol as history shows us.
I personally will not be using "pathfinder only" material until they increase the number of options that I have for making characters. I like playing unique characters and in this game I only have prestige classes to do that.so please pathfinder release more then just varients for base classes.
*edit* befor I get banned lol, I just want to say that pathfinder is a better system. They fixed 90% of the short commings with rules and mechanics that I hated in D&D. Very happy I. Picked up these book.
Well, at least somebody's happy with bloat.
"NO" spoken here...
My preferred fix for prestige classes was to throw out the Pre-requisites. Players basically had to gain my approval by discussing it with me, and accomplishing whatever in-character goals were necessary.
I like organic character growth, and the idea of planning all 20 levels from level 1 just made me kind of ill.
Usually I "build" characters for the same reasons other people do crossword puzzles or seduko -- I enjoy the challenge.
That said I'm honestly more comfortable 'knowing' the character through his build than simply going willynilly about it. When I go willynilly I'll make choices and change them because I as a player get frustrated or bored or don't like the way things are going -- not neccesarily because it's right for the character.
However if I build the character out to 20 then even when I hit the rough spots in the build I know where the character is going and who the character is more.
Of course the mechanical build should never be done without fluff or in disregard of the actual character (the stuff that makes the character something other than fighter #214) and sometimes things change in a campaign that leads the character away from the build I thought I was going to use -- this doesn't bother me since it's a natural part of who the character is/is going to be.
Building out to 20 helps me understand the character's motivations: for example if I'm shooting to a prestige class I know more of what is important to the character to drive him into the prestige class, and I know more of how he likes to do things. It also tells me something about where he has been and how he views his past (through prerequisites and skill choices and those odd bits that attached to some prestige classes).
****
With all that said when I mentioned doing a "build" my main purpose was to point out that I don't worry about what class or how many classes the character has -- What I care about is if his abilities (regardless of source) matches his fluff, history, and who he's supposed to be. I won't stick with a class that doesn't match the character and I won't take a class that doesn't match the character just for the power it offers.
|
|
Usually I "build" characters for the same reasons other people do crossword puzzles or seduko -- I enjoy the challenge.
That said I'm honestly more comfortable 'knowing' the character through his build than simply going willynilly about it. When I go willynilly I'll make choices and change them because I as a player get frustrated or bored or don't like the way things are going -- not neccesarily because it's right for the character.
However if I build the character out to 20 then even when I hit the rough spots in the build I know where the character is going and who the character is more.
Of course the mechanical build should never be done without fluff or in disregard of the actual character (the stuff that makes the character something other than fighter #214) and sometimes things change in a campaign that leads the character away from the build I thought I was going to use -- this doesn't bother me since it's a natural part of who the character is/is going to be.
Building out to 20 helps me understand the character's motivations: for example if I'm shooting to a prestige class I know more of what is important to the character to drive him into the prestige class, and I know more of how he likes to do things. It also tells me something about where he has been and how he views his past (through prerequisites and skill choices and those odd bits that attached to some prestige classes).
****
With all that said when I mentioned doing a "build" my main purpose was to point out that I don't worry about what class or how many classes the character has -- What I care about is if his abilities (regardless of source) matches his...
Lol its like you read my mind.
personally will not be using "pathfinder only" material until they increase the number of options that I have for making characters. I like playing unique characters and in this game I only have prestige classes to do that.so please pathfinder release more then just varients for base classes.
Please realize that variations are done as much with race, stat, trait, skill, feat, and archtype choices, as they are made with prestige classes.
For example:
Human Wizard(teleport school: Banned Enchantment, Evocation)
12 Str 14 Dex 14 Con 15 Int 12 Wis 13 Cha
Is going to be played much differently than:
Elf Wizard(generalist)
7 Str 16 Dex 12 Con 20 Int 11 Wis 7 Cha
The first will probably concentrate on rays, summoning spells, and such, the second save or die effects.
I vote "NO" here as well.
Already have allowed: Barbarians, Druids, Paladin, Monks .... funny how most of them still require an alignment restriction attached to them.
To many classes as is to keep up with.
People complain about there being too many PrCs in 3.5 but how can one have too many options? More options is better. Only poorly made PrCs are problems.
You've answered your own question: Most PrCs were poorly made.
|
|
In a way, Archetypes are worse than a prestige class. You have to know you are doing it from the time you take your first level in a class. That is as early a commitment as one can make.
It depends, most archetypes are just that, archetypes, they are things a person knows they want to do with their character from the begining, I want to be a two weapon fighter, okay, take the archetype. I don't think I've ever created a character where at level one I didn't have some kind of concept in mind of what the character would do enough so that if there was an archetype I would look at it and say, I'm not sure if this works for me.
Archetypes only solve one problem that PrCs create and that is flow and that is only in a sense. You are in the Archetype from the start, so there are supposedly fewer power swings. But a ton of archetypes have horrible abilities and since they aren't actual classes, many of them aren't balanced out well. Half the monk and fighter archetypes are poorly designed and I expect that this is an issue with a bunch of them.
I disagree here, I haven't seen a single archtype that would leave an unskilled gamer seriously lagging behind if they took them. What you see is that in many cases an archetype isn't as good as the base class when in the hands of a skilled player. That in my opinion is a good thing, as I don't want archetypes to be a better option than the standard class, merely an alternate tool.
People complain about there being too many PrCs in 3.5 but how can one have too many options? More options is better. Only poorly made PrCs are problems.
simple, because too many options means that skilled players play on an entirely different level than unskilled ones. the problem is that after so many options are introduced then what happens is that there are going to be options that make older options obsolete or the new option is redundant. which leads to bloat and makes there two seperate games, the one that the casual gamers are playing and the one that the skilled gamers are playing, and the two games do not work together.
The art for it in the adventure path is part of what sells it (and isn't here), but: here
Ok...which book is this PrC in. It sounds cool.
Is there a snippet of it anywhere I wont have to buy a book to see it?
Thanks DM...
damn web blocker. I'll have to look at it when I get home.
The thing I dislike the most about PrCs is the way they handle BAB.
They could've said BAB progresses as per x class...
As it is, unless your original class is at full BAB and the PrC is at full BAB, you are always going to lose at least 1 BAB for taking the PrC. One could say "well that's the price you pay". O RLY?
I'd think the price would be specializing and taking the skill ranks, feats, class abilities required to get into the PrC in the first place.
For a martial/melee character, that 1 less BAB is a hell of a price to pay.
|
|
Please realize that variations are done as much with race, stat, trait, skill, feat, and archtype choices, as they are made with prestige classes.
For example:
Human Wizard(teleport school: Banned Enchantment, Evocation)
12 Str 14 Dex 14 Con 15 Int 12 Wis 13 ChaIs going to be played much differently than:
Elf Wizard(generalist)
7 Str 16 Dex 12 Con 20 Int 11 Wis 7 ChaThe first will probably concentrate on rays, summoning spells, and such, the second save or die effects.
I do realize that. But a level 20 wizzard that uses fire balls and a level 20 wizzard that uses fire balls and disintigration rays may as well be the same character in my opinion.
But now take a wizzard who uses crowd control type spells and goes into say "mind bender" prestige class versus a evocation mage that goes "force missle mage"
That is a drastic difference in concept and progression. A simple superficial choice like do I want to be a human or elf, or do I want full ranks in some profession, isn't the same thing. Just my opinion though.