| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I remember:
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is that they generally just disliked the excessive multiclassing 3.5e had and don't want to provide more incentive for multiclassing, so prestige classes remain primarily for flavor.
You shouldn't "need" prestige classes to make base classes shine. They're meant to do that on their own.
Please bring back prestige classes. I miss them :(
There are already plenty.
I believe one of the points of Pathfinder was to instead of making Ninja Prestige classes, Cleric Prestige classes etc. why not just make the base class better?
I think it's a good move on paizo's part, I never really liked them; and I see no point in making a class that is just a better version of the class you are already playing when as stated, you could just make the base class not suck.
A couple of niches here and there are great for prestige classes, like the Dragon Disciple, or the Abjurant Champion from 3.5.
The magus is a perfect example of my point, it basically invalidates the Eldritch Knight just by existing.
|
Paizo's design philosophy is that single-classing should be the normal default expectation for PCs, and should be mechanically at least as optimal as multiclassing. Multiclassing should only be for unusual character concepts.
Therefore, the purpose of a Prestige Class should be to express a particular concept, not just to optimize a mechanic. That's why they only do prestige classes for in-setting character types and organizations. It's also why they came up with archetypes, in order to allow a wide variety of concepts without the need for multiclassing.
I actually like prestige classes too, but for the same reason James Jacobs does: they express a particular theme and concept. I rather like that Paizo has chosen to limit them to setting-specific themes, as I think this gives them more concrete flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hate? No. They're just not big fans of them.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige classes have prestige in the world. They should be tied to the world. That is the philosophy of prestige classes at paizo.
It was the philosophy for 3.5 also..read the into paragraphs to PrCs in the DMG.
In 3.5, though, it is a philosophy that failed to the philosophy of Publish More Books. 3.5 pretty much stuck to early design mechanisms. PF has brought forward various additional mechanisms, such that they don't need to rely on PrCs to sell books.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
There tend to be more prestige classes in the campaign setting and player companion lines than the core rulebook line. Paths of Prestige has… 12? 15? I'm not sure. They are sprinkled through a lot of the players companions and even the campaign setting books.
There is a *lot* of overlap between archetypes and prestige classes and a lot between a new 20 level class that fills a niche and a prestige class.
There are a ton of items/ feats/ spells that benefit the new base classes. The thing is, the closer a class is to another class in abilities, the more overlap there is with other classes. Ninja are quite close to the rogue and benefit from most feats which benefit the rogue. They also benefit from monk items/ feats.
I personally prefer building feats/ items/ spells/ etc that are more general purpose. Rather than pen an item for ninja's, I'm more likely to pen one that works for ninja and rogues. Probably keyed to sneak attack or stealth. If I'm writing for summoners it's more likely to be something that benefits all spontaneous casters but in a way that favors the summoner. That said, there is a bunch of specific stuff in the books for these classes too. For example, a fair number of archetypes in the race guide were based on new classes.
There are at least 80 prestige classes. A list of core and a list of non-core PrC's. Each page should give the book the PrC is in at the bottom of the entry.
edit: What I mean is, they don't hate them because there are still quite a lot of them. They just don't fill the same role for character development that a base class does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also remember during the beta playtest there was a lot of VERY vocal prestige class fatigue... especially since a lot of people had the attitude in 3.x that you basically HAD to pick a prestige class if you were to continue to do well at higher levels, when they should have been and were meant to be cool options.
I think the RPG, personally, have the right number of PrCs, though I do wish the ones in the APG were better... they're all kind of random/weirdly flavored and some are too narrow--I agree with the sentiment above that most PrCs should be available to a number of classes, but a lot of the PrCs in APG were specifically for only one or two classes (rage prophet specifically for barbarians and oracle multiclasses, only--bleg; master chymist only for alchemists).
I wouldn't mind a handful of PrCs in the advanced class guide, especially if they offered a few more multiclass spellcaster options.
But really personally I think the direction they are going in feels right to me.
Also, I agree with an above post that prestige classes should have world flavor, which is why they made Paths of Prestige--no, they're not core, but it's in line with that particular design philosophy. And frankly, speaking as someone who runs in her own campaign world and not Golarion, I'd have little problem adapting the PoP PrCs to my world with just a few quick flavor changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are at least 80 prestige classes. A list of core and a list of non-core PrC's. Each page should give the book the PrC is in at the bottom of the entry.
edit: What I mean is, they don't hate them because there are still quite a lot of them. They just don't fill the same role for character development that a base class does.
Having sat and counted the ones you linked, there are 80 on the nose.
Of the ones you listed, the following were published during 3.5 and never updated to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game:
01) Bloodmage
02) Brightness Seeker
03) Chevalier
04) Divine Assessor
05) Genie Binder
06) Inheritor's Crusader
07) Justicar
08) Liberator
09) Lion Blade
10) Living Monolith
11) Pain Taster
12) Pathfinder Savant
13) Shackles Pirate
14) Spherewalker
So that means we have 66 Prestige Classes that have been published during the life of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Here are some more facts:
--10 of those Prestige Classes come from the Core Rulebook. All of those Prestige Classes are updates to previous ones, including the Pathfinder Chronicler.
--8 of those Prestige Classes come from the Advanced Player's Guide.
--Prestige Classes have failed to appear in any Core Rulebook line product since 2009. This includes a noticeable absence from the, "definitive guides on Magic and Combat."
This leaves us with 48 Prestige Classes. I'm not going to voice my own opinions on the subject, but keep in mind that of the remaining 48 Prestige Classes, 30 of them come from Paths of Prestige, which was published last year.
That's right, over 50% of the Prestige Classes that we have that have been designed for Pathfinder were written in the past year.
Darn, and here I said I wasn't going to give away my stance on this topic. : /
Something I noticed in the OP I didn't get to responding to before:
which I am against because they barely support the ones they have now (Gunslinger, Samurai and Ninja especially).
Ninja and Samurai are rogues and cavaliers respectively--they are just expanded archetypes of those classes. Anything that supports rogues and cavaliers supports ninja and samurai.
...Ninja prestige classes...
And likewise, any prestige class appropriate for a rogue is appropriate for its alternate, the ninja. Actually, a ninja arcane trickster could be interesting...
Gunslinger prestige classes, ones for Summoners, prestige class hybrids (like a Gunslinger Spellcaster), and other niches.
I don't want to see any prestige classes that work for only one given class--that's what archetypes are for. An RPG line PrC that uses guns as its themes, for which gunslingers qualify easily, could work.
For summoners, I can't think of anything a prestige class could do for them that an archetype couldn't, and otherwise they could work with some existing spellcasting ones fine. Maybe a PrC that advanced companion/familiar/eidolon (but not just one).
|
Meh, I guess they just wanted to make prestige classes prestigious. Like others have already stated, Paizo prefers a prestige class to be a fluff addition to express affiliation for a certain organization or due to a performance of some unusual deed. And I fully support that. I liked some of the PrCs in 3.5....some...by the end there were half of a thousand and half of them were jut copy-paste versions of each other. I always cringed back in 3.5 when your class just didn't have that oomph unless you went PrC or multiclassed. I prefer paizo's way a bit. Archetypes are solid and their base classes are well-rounded. I like that you can stay a single class for 20 levels and still be just as good as the guy who went Eldritch Knight.
Just my two copper pieces, I guess.
Be a Rakshasa born or div-spawn tiefling (get detect thoughts or misdirection as SLA respectively)(meets the 2nd level spell requirement)
go ninja 3 (meets sneak attack +2d6 requirement)
go sorcerer 1 (meets mage hand requirement and compliments the ninja who needs cha for ki points)
get your skills (Disable device 4, escape artist 4, know (arcana) 4)
You meet all prereqs by level 4 and take first AT level at level 5
the following were published during 3.5 and never updated to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game:01) Bloodmage
02) Brightness Seeker
03) Chevalier
04) Divine Assessor
05) Genie Binder
06) Inheritor's Crusader
07) Justicar
08) Liberator
09) Lion Blade
10) Living Monolith
11) Pain Taster
12) Pathfinder Savant
13) Shackles Pirate
14) Spherewalker
You got some wrong: bloodmage (correctly bloatmage), pathfinder savant and inheritor's crusader were made for PF and not for 3.5.
@OP
First of all the ninja and samurai aren't base classes, they are alternative classes for the rogue and the cavalier. That means that you might see an archetype for them, if you are lucky.
Secondly, i will join the others and say that i feel that prestige classes should have prestige, so it's better to have the majority of them to actually be part of the campaign books. And if you want to use them in other settings you can easily (in most cases) replace the fluff and the prestige that are Golarion specific with something suited to the setting you want to place them in.
If your problem is that you feel "forced" to buy setting books when you don't use/want them then you can find the mechanics for them (for free) in d20pfsrd.
The only problem i can see is the above reason combined with PFS.
how can the magus invalidate the EK, when the EK is 100% better?
The magus is a perfect example of my point, it basically invalidates the Eldritch Knight just by existing.
In low level games, the magus can do everything the EK can, and more. You get all the benefits of casting and fighting, from lvl 1.
|
and yet your cating is still inferior to the EK because, unless you start off with fighter 1, you can cast AND scribe scroll, have access to better wands, and gravity bow.
now do understand that when i say "EK" i mean the super optimized ranged EK posted on these boards many, many times. if you dont know fighter1/wizard5/ek10/aa4. this character can slap the magus around in every aspect other then raw damage output.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and yet your cating is still inferior to the EK because, unless you start off with fighter 1, you can cast AND scribe scroll, have access to better wands, and gravity bow.
now do understand that when i say "EK" i mean the super optimized ranged EK posted on these boards many, many times. if you dont know fighter1/wizard5/ek10/aa4. this character can slap the magus around in every aspect other then raw damage output.
Yeah, that secondary niche role of "damage dealing."
Personally... I don't see how these 'archetypes' are preventing multiclassing. Maybe it's just the time of day I find these posts, but I've seen far more posts about multiclassed characters than solo-class.
Also, I really, really don't like archetypes. The basic idea is fine, I love the concept of archetypes, and there are a few that I happen to like. On the other hand, when you can take an archetype and do something another base class can do, only you can do it better? That pisses me off to no end, since it invalidates a large portion of what the base class can do. Rogues are perfect examples of this, why play the base rogue anymore when the archaeologist bard makes a better trap finder than you, or the vivisectionist alchemist make a better sneak-attacker than you? Just to name a few examples.
To me, it feels like they're shoving archetypes down our throats. The only two classes that I've seen that don't have archetypes that trod on someone else's toes (then throws them in their locker afterwords) are Sorcerer, and Summoner. I know it's a mechanics thing, but aren't the classes supposed to be unique and special unto themselves? I'm watching these archetypes and I'm seeing a mass homogenous gray area of overlap with the new guys doing what the other base guys do better.
As I said, I like the idea of archetypes. I just don't think that you should make archetypes that turn one class into another, and does it better. That's what multiclassing is for.
I've looked over almost every archetype in the game. There are a few that I like, but when looking over all of them... most of them just flat out suck beyond flavor options. Some are not well designed, some are too muddled and confusing, and there are more than a few that simply just do not work as written.
Did I mention I have this horrible pet peeve? I may get hung/shot/stabbed/poisoned for this, but if you're going to make an archetype, and give it some fantastic fluff concerning an area.... Make it flipping work like that! (I'm looking at you, over 50% of the Rogue archetypes). Seriously! Some of these archetypes have fantastic fluff in their little descriptive paragraphs, or implied in their names, and when you look at their abilities.... so much disappointment.
That said, I like the idea that PrCs should be prestigious. I agree with the sentiment that they should mostly be flavor and world related. On the other hand, I also think that PrCs should fill certain niche's, or be hybrids of two class types.
In short... I wish Paizo would put out a few more generic PrCs, and cut down a bit on Archetypes... And make archetypes that actually work/fit their fluff/don't do another class's job better.
I'm ready for the noose now.
Edit: If it wasn't clear, my basic area of rage towards archetypes is.... Why bother to be the freaking base class at all anymore? *rage rage*
|
|
Artemis Moonstar -
Archtypes are not, in my experience, strictly better than just playing a base class, as far as the mechanics are concerned. Rather, Archtypes are meant to ease a player's way to creating *exactly* the character they want. Want to play a dirty cop? welp there's a rouge archtype for that. Want to play a bard who investigates old ruins and composes songs about the people who used to live there? acrthype for that, too!
I LOVE archtypes, and I lose Paizo's method with prestige classes. What I like less is the base class bloat. I don't need or want 10 new classes, honestly.
Does Paizo 'hate' prestige classes? Maybe; not likely but they haven't done a good job of making prestige classes I'd pounce on. I feel many of them are underwhelming or underpowered and definitely below par in quality. There's even one that can only be taken by one archetype of a class, which is a little... absurd. I'd much rather have better base classes than can fill many roles myself, but sadly, I don't think the base classes even do that well.
In theory, the classes are balanced - a Witch 10 is CR 9, as is a Ranger 10 ... as is a Sor4/Or3/MT3 multi-prestige class combo.
Far from the truth mind you, classes are rarely balanced and multiclassing a full caster is a real killer on their power because of the way it scales. ToB from 3.5 was a little better about multiclassing and scaling, but pathfinder most things don't scale at all(oracles curse is a very rare example).
You could always infer that you enter at a particular time, such as 6 or 10. I believe 4th edition had their own way of doing it to put things on a similar level, but I haven't had a book from 4E in my hands in ages.
I'm happy that Pathfinder is moving away from prestige classes, because that's one of the worst aspects of 3.x. The fact that if one bought enough books they could bodge together overpowered combos really contributed to the "Magic the Gathering" nature of 3.X. Being able to have a superior character simply because one spent enough money is really poor game design.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never really liked prestige classes. The idea of waiting until level 6 to even begin melding fighter/mage into Eldritch Knight or Cleric/Wizard into Mystic Theurge seemed like a flaw. Hybrid base classes are a great solution (Magus & Witch respectively).
Prestige Classes that express specialisation is far more interesting than hybridisation but only if it reflects flavour. Hellknight and Mantis Assassin are choc full of tasty flavour and world lore. Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight are more like statistical compromises for character concepts.
Prestige classes suck because:
1} Annoying Entry Requisites
Seriously, in order to do [cool thing], I must take such-and-such a skill or such-and-such a feat which may or may not actually be thematically linked. It's a load of hooey. You're allowed to pick obnoxious feat combinations to build a weird reach-weapon Fighter, so why do prestige classes railroad you into builds you may not want?
2} Sacrifice The Wrong Things
Too often with prestige classes you pay for your [cool thing] by sacrificing features you want. At least with archetypes it's much more granular.
I had found Prestige Classes in D&D Third Edition handy for escaping a base class. I grow my characters from experience as they level up, and sometimes they didn't want to continue along the path of the typical ranger or cleric or other base class.
For example, in one campaign that spanned both D&D 3.0 and 3.5 I played a elf cleric who used his high Dexterity for archery. By third level, the entire party had developed a stealthy motif. Our motto was, "Never enter by the front door." My elf could tiptoe beside our rogue and bard at first due to his Dex bonus, but at higher levels he had to spend four skill points per level in the cross-class skills Hide and Move Silently to remain as stealthy as the barbarian. Fortunately, he had Intelligence 16 and gained five skill points per level.
By eighth level my elf's other skills were suffering too much and he could no longer maintain Hide and Move Silently skills at appropriate ranks. He had long ago abandoned his archery in favor of casting spells in combat, but his Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot feats offered an escape for him. He could become an Arcane Archer, a class that claimed Hide and Move Silently as class skills and received 4+Int skill points per level instead of a cleric's 2+Int.
Thus, he took the Weapon Focus(Longbow) feat and a level in Wizard (Favored class for an elf, so no XP penalty for multiclassing, though it felt like he lost a level in exchange for a useful Scribe Scrolls feat). He then took two levels in Arcane Archer to max out his Hide and Move Silently ranks. As a bonus, he gained Imbue Arrow, which let him shoot his divine area effect spells at a distance beyond their natural short range.
He was stealthy and an archer again, but after that, he returned to gaining cleric levels.
Pathfinder does not have cross-class costs for skills. Pathfinder does not have experience point penalties for multiclassing outside Favored Classes and Prestige Classes. Pathfinder offers more methods of customizing characters inside one class, such as archetypes and more feats per level. In essence, Pathfinder does not force my characters into Prestige Classes as the only escape from predetermination that avoids penalties.
Paizo's biggest hate for Prestige Classes is that they made them no longer necessary by giving us players good choices outside of Prestige Classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to me archtypes are the new prestige classes. Just not worth taking and in some cases not worth the paper they are printed on imo. If I have to lose sayu a entire domain of spells I weant more than just a +1 bonus to certain skill. While Wotc did release too many prestige classes at least for the most part they are worth taking. Honestly though wtih all the archtypes we don't need prestige classes. With some strange entry requirements I'm not bothered by a lack of them. It's not like it's that hard to convert a 3.5 one to a Pathfinder one away.
1} Annoying Entry Requisites
That isn't inherent with a prestige class though, you could easily just make a prestige class without annoying prereqs. To be honest the only prerequisites there should be are ones related to what you need to make the class function. Unfortunately paizo carried this baggage into the ones they made, for a reason I can't fathom. Seriously, count the number of PrCs that need something like iron will.
1} Annoying Entry RequisitesThat isn't inherent with a prestige class though, you could easily just make a prestige class without annoying prereqs. To be honest the only prerequisites there should be are ones related to what you need to make the class function. Unfortunately paizo carried this baggage into the ones they made, for a reason I can't fathom. Seriously, count the number of PrCs that need something like iron will.
Sure. You could. But nobody does. Because... reasons.
The requirements should be: five class levels. No feat requirements, no skill requirements, no class feature requirements. If you take a PC that increases sneak attack progression and you don't have sneak attack, that's your poor decision.
The problem is the fluff versus crunch. Developers want to keep the prestige in Prestige Class. No, no, you can't be a Master Sneaker because you haven't maxed out Stealth. Yeah, got it. But there could be a few neat features of Master Sneaker that would fit my idea for a character who say... uses a ring of invisibility to remain unobserved. But again, the developers view PCs as organizations that you seek membership in. You don't qualify to board this ride unless you are THIS tall.
I think archetypes fix that nicely. No requirements. No excess fluff. More sharply defined (you can have multiple archetypes if you want.)
I think archetypes fix that nicely. No requirements. No excess fluff. More sharply defined (you can have multiple archetypes if you want.)
I'd be inclined to agree, but I think archetypes are mostly horrible and to make them worse many remove things they don't have to. I'd be cool with them if they removed x to get x on an equal basis, or kept the exchange of abilities to a minimum, but as is they don't. They do have a requirement, you have to give something up to enter. 3.5 had variants, which were really the same thing but more minimal.(mind you classes in 3.5 had less to give up usually)
To me, archetypes just feel like a failed attempt at bringing the feel of the 2e class kits.
I'm fond of prestige classes, although mainly for the fluff. It's nice that your achievements give you more than numerical progression. But yeah, there seems to be plenty of prestige classes, they just arent "awesome" compared to other options available. Which, in comparison to 3.5, could give the impression paizo dislikes PrCs.
Note: I also think prestige classes should specialize rather than marry classes together. But certain archetypes do that very well. Heck, I'd love a construct crafting prestige class (considering the high cost/spell level generally required). I think prestige classes should(mechanically) be examples of specialisation. Want to only fling elemental spells? Or use shields? or stab people (Assassin)? Some archetypes give these options. But as indicated before, unless PrCs are a supplement (as in d&d 4e), they should only be equivalent to the base classes.
Other note:
Like artemis said (for archetypes though), when the fluff and crunch conflict, it's frustrating. My favorite prestige is the horizon walker; who doesnt want to be master of all lands? But realistically, you're only master of 2 or 3. Which makes me sad. Compared it to 3.5 where you did get cool stuff at each level. But the class was messed up because you got the equivalent of 2-3 feats every level. Game balance is hard.
I like prestige classes when they are campaign setting specific. Generic prestige classes seem like a waste of time to me. It's the story behind a prestige class that makes them interesting.
To give an example. The Assassin prestige class is dull and boring. The Red Mantis Assassin is very interesting. They both do the same thing but you see how a Campaign specific prestige class brings life to the class that the generic lacks.
To me, archetypes just feel like a failed attempt at bringing the feel of the 2e class kits.
2E kits were what destroyed 2E. It was neat idea in concept but they let power creep get too out of hand by the end.
This happened with Prestige classes too. It got to the point where you picked a Prestige class play and picked the base class that go you into it ASAP. Really there was no need for 1-20 levels of core classes. No one took a core class beyond 8th level.
One of the things I hate, HATE HATE about 3.5 is the zillions of PrC’s, many of them poorly vetting or playtested and the ability to cherry pick a level or two here and then and make a Pun-pun. I think Paizo is doing it right. That other game company just ran them off to make some extra cash.
I like the archetypes for mechanical alterations. It adds choices without too many unforeseen interactions when combined with multiclassing.
Prestige Classes should only have setting specific RP requirements like organization membership and fees, initiation, acquire that thingamajig, do a hired kill for that guy, etc.
So I like the setting approach.
3.5 had way too many PrCs, and leveling became about 'what to dip next'... Which is fun for theorycrafting, but not for RP, "I want my character to focus on this, and this thereafter, and this too, and then this..."
I actually like the idea of Prestige Classes, and I'm saddened by the amount of mechanically weak ones in Pathfinder.
What doubles my frustration is that while they are mostly inferior in abilities, the flavor and lore of the PrC is very interesting.
I liked lots of prestige class options also, but I suspect one reason for limiting them is to limit unexpected combinations that are game breaking or invalidating of more traditional options.
I too hate the idea of all the unnecessary campaign specific stuff. When RPG superstar was requesting these type of entries I was at first baffled. I couldn't imagine what could be gained by putting these limiters on things for no reason. I later came to the conclusion that campaign specific stuff gets around the OGL for others to post the material. I think copyright has more to do with a lot of campaign specific things than the desire to make Galorian a more rich environment. There is nothing to say all the same lore and mechanics can't be in place without it being written right on the character class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I hate, HATE HATE about 3.5 is the zillions of PrC’s, many of them poorly vetting or playtested and the ability to cherry pick a level or two here and then and make a Pun-pun. I think Paizo is doing it right. That other game company just ran them off to make some extra cash.
I'm of the opposite opnion. I like having zillions of options, because that's all they are; options. It boils down to DM discretion, how many of these PrC's actually exist in the game setting. Same goes for "cherry picking;" if the DM allows players to hop from PrC to PrC, then it's the groups problem, not the system's.
Why does is bother you if people "cherry pick" at all? Are other player's fun somehow not valid unless they play just like you? I like hefty multiclassing. It's a perfectly valid style of play, whether you choose to try it or not.
Why does is bother you if people "cherry pick" at all? Are other player's fun somehow not valid unless they play just like you? I like hefty multiclassing. It's a perfectly valid style of play, whether you choose to try it or not.The problem was that 3.X made single-classing a strongly suboptimal choice. The problem that people are perceiving with Pasizo's PrC's is that they aren't instantly the better choice than single-classing that nearly every 3.X prestige class was. Part of that perception comes from the basic fact that Paizo made the base classes "not sucking." a top priority.
I thought the problem with both editions is that PrCs, Archetypes and even the classes themselves aren't balanced with each other. One being obviously better than the other is probably bad, but the fact staying single class is obviously better than going into a PrC or multiclassing isn't cool either. The upside is that most options are at least viable enough to be played. (Usually anyway; games do vary)