| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is said all the time by people on the forum (and even in FAQ responses by the PDT) that prestige classes are a suboptimal choice for PC advancement. So I wanted to look at why that is and if it should be different.
Back in 3.5, Prestige Classes were definitely not looked at as "suboptimal." But there are a number of changes that PF put in place that makes them less desirable than they were.
In 3.5, PrC's were a way to specialize. Your Fighter could choose mounted feats, but taking the Cavalier PrC gave them much more mounted combat ability than feats alone could. But in PF, archetypes generally fulfill the role of specialization and provide focused abilities for your role. This removes the "need" to take a PrC to do the job you want.
3.5 PrC's also provided class features. Any full casting PrC cost the character practically nothing since Wizards and Sorcerers had almost no class features. Similarly, Fighters received little, so the class features of a PrC were good. PF made all classes receive features at all levels. So there isn't the need to take a PrC to fill "empty levels."
3.5 PrC's could provide an ability that no class provided. Arcane Archer and Dragon Disciple are good examples of this. And I think this is a good position for PrC's to fulfill in PF. If there is an ability that would require radical re-writing of the base class, it is a good choice for a PrC. Dragon Disciple is still a good example in PF, but Arcane Archer looks like it could just be a range-focused archetype of the Magus.
3.5 PrCs could be an attempt to merge two (or more) classes. Arcane Heirophant, Mystic Theurge, Rage Mage all come to mind. There are a couple of these still evident in PF (Battle Herald, Mystic Theurge remains, Rage Prophet).
The last role PrC's played in 3.5 was to represent membership (though it usually also accomplished one of the other four). Red Wizard is an example of this, being originally from the Forgotten Realms where the country of Thay is ruled by the Red Wizards of Thay. PF has continued this idea of PrC, such as Steel Falcon, Lion Blade, etc.
Pretty much agree with what you're saying (for PF anyway, never palyed 3.5). There are a few specialization PrCs still (stalwart defender comes to mind).
One thing that people say about PrCs a lot is that they dont have full save advancement, which is kinda wrong. If you take the prestige class at level 11-20, your saves will be identical to a character that hadnt done the PrC and had the same save progression. Saves just advance slightly more slowly from 11-20 than in 1-10.
All in all, I like the flavour ones, thought they are harder to justify.
I don't see the need in PF for PrC's to contribute to specialization, at least not without some other element happening too. I think archetypes are as good or better at this role.
Similarly, I don't think adding abilities is needed/desirable in PF. The base classes all get abilities throughout their advancement (though not necessarily equal abilities). No empty levels was a design intent of PF.
I do think PF PrC's could be based on a unique ability not provided by any of the base classes. The Dragon Disciple's transformation is a very good example. Being able to do something no one else can do might justify the losses you incur in the base class, especially if the ability is too complex to be used in an archetype.
Multiclass PrC's are an idea I like (though it is devalued as more "multiclass" base classes are introduced such as Magus and the new ACG that will be coming out). But I think to make these classes more attractive they should be a little more focused. I think I will address what I mean in more detail in another post.
Membership PrC's are cool, but only if they still fulfill another function. PrC's are a mechanic of the game, and should provide mechanics to the character. If it is just for story purposes, then the membership could have just been part of the story.
The problem I found under 3.X was that taking a prestige class was almost a given because they were far better than sticking to a base class. I can only think of one, maybe two, campaigns where not everyone took a PrC.
Thankfully under Pathfinder that is no longer the case, but now I rarely see PrCs due to archetypes being being playable immediately and base classes being better than they were.
|
The main problem for casters is that they lose the class features that weigh heavily into the class itself, and has very few features themselves to take their place.
I also think in PF that the entry into the PrC's should be at a lower level, around 4th or 5th instead of the likely entry in about 7th or 9th level or higher. (Have ranks required go down to 4 or 5 and so one)
The main problem is that the core of the classes were improved ("Fixed") but the PrC's were just adjusted. Nothing was added to take the place of the improvements that the core classes recieved, so in essence the PrC's lost power.
williamoak, yeah, I have made the saving throw point a couple times myself. PF PrC's are designed to be like advancing an existing progression, not adding a new progression. They generally work out to be close to a single class's progression over time.
So, I wanted to address the multiclass PrC's a bit more, with some examples.
I think multiclass PrC's should be thought of as a 10/8 progression. That is, they would progress the "main" class throughout all 10 levels, and the "secondary" class an equivalent of 8 levels.
Of course, there should be a cost but I think that is covered in the initial multiclassing of base classes to qualify.
For example, the Mystic Theurge grants both sides full casting but at the expense of all class features of both base classes. Plus initial multiclassing. So a Wiz 3/Cleric 3/MT 10 has casting of 13/13, but Wiz and Cleric class features of only 3/3.
I think a theoretical Eldritch Disciple PrC that advanced your wizard casting and school 10 levels and cleric casting plus a single domain 5 levels would be more better. The Wiz 3/Cleric 3/ED 10 would end with casting 13/11, Wiz school of 13, and one domain of 11. You could write it so that the divine {Domain or Mystery) can be chosen as the main and the arcane (Wizard School or Bloodline) as the secondary instead.
Rage Prophet would be another example. Going Barbarian 4/Oracle 16 gets better BAB and spells than a Rage Prophet. So focus on one or the other in the class. Making it full casting is probably enough, or alternatively making it full BAB while keeping the caster level loss.
I guess what I am saying is that in this game, the penalties from multiclassing to qualify for the PrC are probably enough to justify advancing the special abilities of one class all 10 levels and abilities of the other some amount. You will still be worse at either side than a straight class.
The problem I found under 3.X was that taking a prestige class was almost a given because they were far better than sticking to a base class. I can only think of one, maybe two, campaigns where not everyone took a PrC.
I don't see that as a "problem" per se. If you wanted to play a mounted character, a mounted PrC made sense.
I agree it isn't as needed in PF, with archetypes. But to turn your comment around a bit, I see very few people taking the "vanilla" versions of classes when they could take an archetype that focuses on what they want to do. Is that a "problem" with archetypes?
I would say no, PrC's in 3.5 were designed for several reasons, including specialization. Archetypes are Paizo's design element for the same thing.
I think PrC prerequisites also deserve attention. PrC design should take into account what is an appropriate level for what it gives you, and the prereq's should actually focus on that goal.
I think skill, BAB, or (after the FAQ change) "unaugmented (arcane/divine) caster level" are good bench marks since they require a certain level. What level that should be depends on the class itself.
I agree that PrCs can give abilities to PCs that aren't otherwise available, but I already feel that Pathfinder has too many base classes.
Adding a massive trove of PrCs to the mix would only make a problem worse. I miss core-only Pathfinder games. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been in one. At least none that lasted more than one session. :(
Options and customizing are usually a good thing. Careful what you wish for, personally I like the magus class but I hate the witch class. I think each can be judged on their own merit.
Anyways, PrCs suffer a lot. Many of them have requirements unrelated to actually entering the class, they had their saving throw progression nerfed, and they still don't have fractional BAB and start with 0 so 3/4 and 1/2 BAB classes tend to lose BAB by entering them. Coupled with very few of them being good in their own right, very few abilities being scaling*, and keeping many of the flaws they had in 3.5 makes them not so desirable.
Another more class specific reason is that there is a FAQs that you don't learn new spells in your PrC if you learn from books. That's a little detouring and completely unnecessary. So, magus, witches, and wizards don't learn 2 new spells per level when they level in a prc. Hope your GM lets you get new scrolls to learn from about every level up!
* For example hexes. You can have a full arcane progression class but it won't progress the core reason to play a witch. Therefore witches don't go into PrCs ever.
Well, nothing stops you from playing a Core-only Pathfinder game, so rejoice!
And I am not really advocating for a bunch more, just better.
For example, I think Arcane Archer could be just an archetype of Magus that applies class features to a bow.
Duelist is pretty close to several archetypes for Fighter, Rogue, and Magus. So is there need for it as a separate PrC?
But Dragon Disciple, Arcane Trickster, and Mystic Theurge fulfill one of the roles of a PrC that would be difficult for an archetype.
I agree with MrSin about random requirements. I don't agree about the saves (see comment in previous post), and BAB can be an issue but isn't necessarily, depends on build.
Ex. A Cleric taking a PrC with 3/4 BAB. A Cleric 5/PrC 5 has BAB 6, but if you could go 4/6 it would be 7 and the same as a straight Cleric.
As far as not scaling base class abilities, the PrC should provide something that makes up for it. Most don't but that is indeed part of the conversation I am trying to have.
|
Yeah when pathfinder was released they made it one of their goals to strengthen the base classes. Then they introduced archetypes. Both of which made PrCs obsolete. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Who wants to wait six or seven levels being pigeonholed into certain feats/abilities so you can finally play your character concept!? I just wish paizo would scrap PrCs and turn the existing ones into archetypes (easily done). Even though I don't like the idea of hybrid classes coming out next year, turning existing PrCs into hybrid classes is still preferable to PrCs.
And the idea you need a PrC for membership is bogus. Even in 3.5 Forgotten Realms they said all Harpers aren't necessarily Harper PrC. Membership should be defined through roleplaying not by a class.
"Class merger" PrCs are kinda nice, but then again, it feels like ACFs should cover those, or at least are trying to cover those already.
What is an ACF?
Also, we don't have infinite feats and boon companions main use I've seen is to bring up an animal companion to where it should be in the first place for a ranger.
Both of which made PrCs obsolete.
Not obsolete. Another option was to not repeat the same flaws they already had or to improve upon their design. Nope! Make them worse. That was the solution.
|
|
Not obsolete. Another option was to not repeat the same flaws they already had or to improve upon their design. Nope! Make them worse. That was the solution.
I don't mean the designers intentionally made PrCs obsolete just they succeeded so well at what they wanted to do, strengthen the core classes, that PrCs are an inferior build option.
Not obsolete. Another option was to not repeat the same flaws they already had or to improve upon their design. Nope! Make them worse. That was the solution.I don't mean the designers intentionally made PrCs obsolete just they succeeded so well at what they wanted to do, strengthen the core classes, that PrCs are an inferior build option.
I didn't say they intentionally did. I did say that's what they did though. They nerfed saves, they decided to use prerequisites that didn't have to do with the actual class, and the class features in most of them are just unappealing.
Well, I disagree with LoneKnave that arcetypes or alternate class features make sense for the fusing of two classes. You would have to re-write the class so much it would not resemble the original. That's why I think PrC's are good for that role. Of course the additional "multiclass" base classes are reducing that role as well.
That's also why I don't think everything can be an archetype and completely scrap PrC's. Re-writing Dragon Disciple into a Sorcerer archetype would be a mess.
I think it is too strong a statement to say PrC's are obsolete. But they have definitely taken a back seat role. Which is why I would rather they focus on what PrC's do well (introduce an ability too different to make an archetype, multiclass fusions).
I think part of the problem is PrC's need to be stronger. As someone else said, they were mostly just ported over while the base classes were made stronger. To make a PrC worth taking it has to give you something that is worth the base class abilities you are giving up, and most just don't.
PrC's should be the go-to choice for every PC like they were in 3.5, but they should be worthwhile in accomplishing what they do.
I realize I made a mistake, the last sentence of my last post should say
"PrC's should not be the go-to choice for every PC like they were in 3.5, but they should be worthwhile in accomplishing what they do."
I kinda hated the way prestiege classes were in 3.5. Everyone just took a smattering of classes to grab a bunch of unrelated abilities that ultimately made you crazy powerful.
One of the things that I like about Pathfinder is that the general power level was toned down from 3.5.
One of the things that I like about Pathfinder is that the general power level was toned down from 3.5.
Pathfinder is actually a power up for the PCs compared to 3.5, a rather significant one at that. But the power was given to Base Classes and not Prestige Classes, so the overall effect is that characters are crazy powerful without needing much multiclassing.
I didn't say they intentionally did. I did say that's what they did though. They nerfed saves, they decided to use prerequisites that didn't have to do with the actual class, and the class features in most of them are just unappealing.
Less of a "nerf" and more of a "normalization." When you multiclass between Base Classes, you often give a significant 1st Level boast to the new class's saving throw bonuses at the cost of a reduction to their poor save. If I go Fighter 1 / Samurai 1, I end up with a +4 Fortitude but a longer time to wait before my Reflex and Will reach +1. The saving throw bonuses of Prestige Classes are actually normalized so they keep a character with a good (or poor) bonus on the same track if the character was already on that track. For example, if I take 6 levels in Fighter and then take the Stalwart Defender prestige class, my saving throws are going to be identical to those of a Fighter who didn't take the Prestige Class.
So yes, while this is a nerf to your Good Save, its also a buff to your Poor Save, as original Prestige Classes would delay your worst saves even more in the same situation.
This is just my opinion, but I think most of the Prestige Class prerequisites that we see in Pathfinder are fair. Instead of saying that they're unnecessary and leaving your argument at that, please list some of the Prestige Classes that bother you. Personally, I find that its the Golarion Prestige Classes that often have the more arbitrary prerequisites compared to the World Neutral ones.
Yeah when pathfinder was released they made it one of their goals to strengthen the base classes. Then they introduced archetypes. Both of which made PrCs obsolete. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Who wants to wait six or seven levels being pigeonholed into certain feats/abilities so you can finally play your character concept!? I just wish paizo would scrap PrCs and turn the existing ones into archetypes (easily done). Even though I don't like the idea of hybrid classes coming out next year, turning existing PrCs into hybrid classes is still preferable to PrCs.
And the idea you need a PrC for membership is bogus. Even in 3.5 Forgotten Realms they said all Harpers aren't necessarily Harper PrC. Membership should be defined through roleplaying not by a class.
Many posters are implying this, so I'm just going to go ahead and say it. Multiclassing is not a poor option in Pathfinder and you are perfectly capable of making powerful buildings while multiclassing. In 3.5, Multiclassing for power was a no-brainer. Now single-class progression is the no-brainer, but that doesn't make multiclassing any less powerful. Building an effective multiclass character takes a fair deal of system mastery, but once you get to that point it can be very hard to find justification in staying a single class character. (Notable exception: Spellcasters typically do not multiclass well, especially the witch and summoner.)
Now, I'm sure I am going to come off as blasphemous, but in my opinion archetypes are just as restrictive as Prestige Classes with the notable exception of the qinggong monk. Every archetype forces you to take a suit of abilities that you may or may not want and while they do not typically command you to place skills and feats in specific places, they sure as heck force you into a "cookie cutter" build. For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, it basically means that virtually all arcane duelist bards have the same exact suite of abilities, even if something like rallying cry or bladethirst is less thematic for your character than inspire courage or sea shanty or whatever. Prestige Classes suffer from this, sure, but I can always choose how long I want to stick with the class and at what point I'm ready to leave it. If I want to take two levels in Arcane Trickster and never take another level in the class again, I can make that call. An archetype doesn't give me that flexibility, and 99% of the players who advocate Prestige Classes and multiclassing in general are looking for either flexibility, uniqueness, or both of these things.
As a final note, I personally find the argument that all Prestige Classes need to be tied to an organization "bogus." To me, a Prestige Class is a universal archetype that can only be selected when specific criteria are met. With some exceptions, archetypes don't translate well into overlapping entities and that's where Prestige Classes should chime in. I've also never been big on the idea that you should have to wait for three of four levels in order to receive the key power of your prestige class. For example, everyone goes Shadow Dancer for the shadow jump ability, so I'd agree with you that it sucks to have to wait until the class's 4th level in order to receive that ability. Prestige Classes should be balanced around giving you the fun mechanic that you want right away, and then building it up to be cooler and cooler as you progress. That way if I decide that two levels of Master Chemyst is enough for the one mutagen ability that I wanted, well, that's my choice.
I like multiclass PrC as a concept. For example, I'd love to play a Battle Herald and be a real awesome leader of soldiers...if it weren't for that fact that I'm weaker than if I went straight Bard or straight Cavalier.
I like multiclass PrC as a concept. For example, I'd love to play a Battle Herald and be a real awesome leader of soldiers...if it weren't for that fact that I'm weaker than if I went straight Bard or straight Cavalier.
Coincidentally, a PC that I GM for is a Battle Herald. He is by no means weaker than any other member of the party because he focuses primarily on providing combat bonuses to his allies through abilities like the Bodyguard feat, Inspire Courage, and by using nonlethal damage to inflict the staggered condition onto opponents.
If you go into every option in the game asking, "Is this going to make me deal max Damage Per Round," then most of the time you're going to be disappointed when you look at multiclassing. But unsurprisingly multiclass characters tend to be better rounded and possess skills and abilities that allow them to shine in many different situations. Immune to nonlethal damage? Okay, I'll focus on singing and buffing my party. Zone of silence? I can't overcome the enemy's damage reduction? Okay, I'll focus on using the aid another action to make sure that the guy who can punch through the damage reduction can hit more reliably.
This is just my opinion, but I think most of the Prestige Class prerequisites that we see in Pathfinder are fair. Instead of saying that they're unnecessary and leaving your argument at that, please list some of the Prestige Classes that bother you. Personally, I find that its the Golarion Prestige Classes that often have the more arbitrary prerequisites compared to the World Neutral ones.
Anyone that has great fortitude, lightning reflexes, or iron will is a good start for bad prereqs. Also skill focus. Not one of those feats actually has something to do with what the class does. Quiet a few don't use the skills they require and some require quiet a number of skills. I'm sure could make a long list of unreasonable prerequisites. Here are a few
Aldori Swordlord requires Weapon Finesse but does nothing with it.
Arcane Archer inherited its prereqs(why do I need focus and point blank again? Oh, because its archery. Too bad the class again, doesn't use either)
Arcane Trickster inherited its non lawful needs, doesn't use its escape artist, and has no need for stealth. Disable device is cool with me though.
Arclord of Nex requires diplomacy and engineering for some... reason. The feats look alright to me though.
Aspis Agent uses its craft traps... oddly enough. At worst it requires whips but only uses them for optional feats. Its appraise and history are probably not needed.
Assassin held its evil alignment. That's a subject. It also got nerfed and lots its spellcasting and got
Battle Herald requires ranks in perform(oratory) and profession(soldier) even thought it already requires 5 ranks in diplomacy and bluff and levels in cavalier/samurai and a class with inspire courage. This is APG material too.
Bellflower Tiller requires teamwork feats but only gives more of them as a class feature and it requires a total of 18 skill ranks. Could probably do without the disguise at least. It also requires CG.
I like multiclass PrC as a concept. For example, I'd love to play a Battle Herald and be a real awesome leader of soldiers...if it weren't for that fact that I'm weaker than if I went straight Bard or straight Cavalier.Coincidentally, a PC that I GM for is a Battle Herald. He is by no means weaker than any other member of the party because he focuses primarily on providing combat bonuses to his allies through abilities like the Bodyguard feat, Inspire Courage, and by using nonlethal damage to inflict the staggered condition onto opponents.
Personally, I'd still like my PrCs to be closer to on par or to a point I wouldn't care so much about the loss. Btw, how is he inflicting stagger with his non lethal?
I realize I made a mistake, the last sentence of my last post should say
"PrC's should not be the go-to choice for every PC like they were in 3.5, but they should be worthwhile in accomplishing what they do."
Ah. That makes much more sense. I thought that's what you meant, but, you know. :)
One thing I want to point out. PrCs as being part of an affiliation still function well, however they are not necessary. Reasons (and ways) it functions:
1) it represents a specific set of hidden knowledge and skills the organization has developed by tapping into the resources provided by its other classes; this is the basic theory behind the Harper classes or the Daggermark Poisoner, for example. This is probably the most common.
2) it represents, you know, specific prestige within the organization (regardless of actual power, you gain respect and prestige); this represents such things as the Hathrans, or Razmiran Priest. This generally overlaps with number 1.
3) it represents entry into the organization on any level other than "subservient"; this represents such things as the Red Wizards of Thay, the Mage of the Arcane Order, or Bloatmages. This usually overlaps with number 1, and usually also overlaps with completely unique abilities (instead of blended abilities).
Anyway, I just wanted to point that out.
Oh, and reference the save progression, it's definitely a "full save progression"... kind of. But not really. It's actually much weirder than that.
The following chart (yeah, it sucks, sorry) illustrates:
lvl-nrml-prstg
01 2/0 - 1/0
02 3/0 - 1/1
03 3/1 - 2/1
04 4/1 - 2/1
05 4/1 - 3/2
06 5/2 - 3/2
07 5/2 - 4/2
08 6/2 - 4/3
09 6/3 - 5/3
10 7/3 - 5/3
If you adjust the rates to ignore the initial +2...
lvl-nrml-prstg
01 0/0 - 1/0
02 1/0 - 1/1
03 1/1 - 2/1
04 2/1 - 2/1
05 2/1 - 3/2
06 3/2 - 3/2
07 3/2 - 4/2
08 4/2 - 4/3
09 4/3 - 5/3
10 5/3 - 5/3
... you get the image of the prestige class granting equal or better saves comparatively.
When you synch up the save progression to a real character (ignoring the initial +2, because it doesn't matter here, and once you've achieved first level you keep it no matter what)...
lvl-nrml-prstg-cmbnd
1/* - 0/0 - * - *
2/* - 1/0 - * - *
3/* - 1/1 - * - *
4/* - 2/1 - * - *
5/1 - 2/1 - 1/0 - 3/1
6/2 - 3/2 - 1/1 - 3/2
7/3 - 3/2 - 2/1 - 4/2
8/4 - 4/2 - 2/1 - 4/2
9/5 - 4/3 - 3/2 - 5/3
10/6 - 5/3 - 3/2 - 5/3
11/7 - 5/3 - 4/2 - 6/3
12/8 - 6/4 - 4/3 - 6/4
13/9 - 6/4 - 5/3 - 7/4
14/10 - 7/4 - 5/3 - 7/4
You get a skewed progression that enhances your strong save by 1 level, while leaving your poor save intact.
Or, if you take it at level six...
lvl-nrml-prstg-cmbnd
5/* - 2/1 - * - *
6/1 - 3/2 - 1/0 - 3/1
7/2 - 3/2 - 1/1 - 3/2
8/3 - 4/2 - 2/1 - 4/2
9/4 - 4/3 - 2/1 - 4/2
10/5 - 5/3 - 3/2 - 5/3
11/6 - 5/3 - 3/2 - 5/3
12/7 - 6/4 - 4/2 - 6/3
13/8 - 6/4 - 4/3 - 6/4
14/9 - 7/4 - 5/3 - 7/4
15/10 - 7/5 - 5/3 - 7/4
... you get a slightly skewed progression that lowers your weak save by a level.
lvl-nrml-prstg-cmbnd
6/* - 3/2 - * - *
7/1 - 3/2 - 1/0 - 4/2
8/2 - 4/2 - 1/1 - 4/3
9/3 - 4/3 - 2/1 - 5/3
10/4 - 5/3 - 2/1 - 5/3
11/5 - 5/3 - 3/2 - 6/4
12/6 - 6/4 - 3/2 - 6/4
13/7 - 6/4 - 4/2 - 7/4
14/8 - 7/4 - 4/3 - 7/5
15/9 - 7/5 - 5/3 - 8/5
16/10 - 8/5 - 5/3 - 8/5
You get a skewed progression that enhances your strong save and your weak save by 1 level.
lvl-nrml-prstg-cmbnd
7/* - 3/2 - * - *
8/1 - 4/2 - 1/0 - 4/2
9/2 - 4/3 - 1/1 - 4/3
10/3 - 5/3 - 2/1 - 5/3
11/4 - 5/3 - 2/1 - 5/3
12/5 - 6/4 - 3/2 - 6/4
13/6 - 6/4 - 3/2 - 6/4
14/7 - 7/4 - 4/2 - 7/4
15/8 - 7/5 - 4/3 - 7/5
16/9 - 8/5 - 5/3 - 8/5
17/10 - 8/5 - 5/3 - 8/5
... you get a perfectly normal progression that acts like you'd never taken the prestige class.
lvl-nrml-prstg-cmbnd
8/* - 4/2 - * - *
9/1 - 4/3 - 1/0 - 5/2
10/2 - 5/3 - 1/1 - 5/3
11/3 - 5/3 - 2/1 - 6/3
12/4 - 6/4 - 2/1 - 6/3
13/5 - 6/4 - 3/2 - 7/4
14/6 - 7/4 - 3/2 - 7/4
15/7 - 7/5 - 4/2 - 8/4
16/8 - 8/5 - 4/3 - 8/5
17/9 - 8/5 - 5/3 - 9/5
18/10 - 9/6 - 5/3 - 9/5
... you get a skewed progression that occasionally enhances your strong saves by a level, but reduces your weak saves by a level.
lvl-nrml-prstg-cmbnd
9/* - 4/3 - * - *
9/1 - 5/3 - 1/0 - 5/3
10/2 - 5/3 - 1/1 - 5/4
11/3 - 6/4 - 2/1 - 6/4
12/4 - 6/4 - 2/1 - 6/4
13/5 - 7/4 - 3/2 - 7/5
14/6 - 7/5 - 3/2 - 7/5
15/7 - 8/5 - 4/2 - 8/5
16/8 - 8/5 - 4/3 - 8/6
17/9 - 9/6 - 5/3 - 9/6
18/10 - 9/6 - 5/3 - 9/6
20/10 - 10/6 - 5/3 - 10/7
... you get a skewed progression that occasionally enhances your weak save by a level, and leaves your strong progression intact.
Of course all of that is presuming your strong and weak saves line up. They don't always. If the class has better saves than you (such as a dragon disciple's fortitude) compared with yours, you'll end up better, though not as good as if you multi-classed with class that had a good save (because you're lacking a +2). If the class has a worse save than yours (such as a shadow dancer, duelist, or assassin's fortitude to a ranger), you'll end up behind your base class' expectations.
As to the probably-epic-ninja'ing (if someone else did this) and of not responding to a bunch of posts or points: look, I've got a toddler, and although the math is simple, those stupid columns took me forever. Especially when I made a transcribing error in the first one and found (at the end) my saves were absurdly high...
I think I said before, I don't have an issue with PrC's that represent organization membership. Its just that the PrC must fulfill one of the other roles of a PrC, and not just be a suboptimal class to represent membership.
The "hidden knowledge" of a certain religion could be the same as the "unique ability" PrC role. Just make the PrC worthwhile to take.
But every PrC shouldn't represent a member of some organization. Multiclass PrC, Unique ability PrC, and even some Specialist PrC should exist, completely divorced of ties to a guild, church, or nation.
I think I said before, I don't have an issue with PrC's that represent organization membership. Its just that the PrC must fulfill one of the other roles of a PrC, and not just be a suboptimal class to represent membership.
I was actually responding to:
And the idea you need a PrC for membership is bogus. Even in 3.5 Forgotten Realms they said all Harpers aren't necessarily Harper PrC. Membership should be defined through roleplaying not by a class.
... more than you, though I wanted to point out potential reasoning behind PrCs being tied to membership, but not being exclusive to membership. And/or also being exclusive to membership. PrCs don't all follow the same rules.
The "hidden knowledge" of a certain religion could be the same as the "unique ability" PrC role. Just make the PrC worthwhile to take.
But every PrC shouldn't represent a member of some organization. Multiclass PrC, Unique ability PrC, and even some Specialist PrC should exist, completely divorced of ties to a guild, church, or nation.
I agree, although whoever develops the PrC will likely have a great many people banging down their door to learn their "secret technique", unless they make it public. :)
EDIT: to quote myself!
One thing I want to point out. PrCs as being part of an affiliation still function well, however they are not necessary.
Poor English and all! What I meant was that even though all PrCs don't need to be tied to an organization, they can be tied to an organization very well and deeply for many reasons. :)
I've just been generally disappointed with PrC's in Pathfinder due to balance issues.
At least back in 3.5e, a Prestige Class wasn't as worthless as the Toughness feat was at the time.
The focus on the base classes I can understand, but it came at the cost of most PrC's being worthless aside from fluff.
But as much as I enjoy the fluff, I prefer my balanced mix of fluff and game mechanics. If a PrC is too weak, I can't bring myself to taking it.
Aldori Swordlord requires Weapon Finesse but does nothing with it.
The Aldori Dueling Sword is a finessable weapon and the entire Prestige Class is built around it. One of the very first abilities that you get from the Aldori Swordlord Prestige Class lets you add your Dexterity to damage rolls with this weapon as well. Weapon Finesse is vital to the Prestige Class.
Arcane Archer inherited its prereqs(why do I need focus and point blank again? Oh, because its archery. Too bad the class again, doesn't use either)
Or, perhaps, because you need a level or two of squishy mage, which is going to lower your Base Attack Bonus by +1? Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot make up for that, not counting that virtually all of the good archery feats require Point Blank Shot anyway.
I'm not going to comment on alignment because that's a whole different can of worms, but Stealth is one of the iconic "trickster" skills. Its hardly a tax to ask you to put ranks in Stealth when you're an Arcane Trickster. I'll concede that Escape Artist is pretty weird, but generally speaking the skill requirements aren't a big deal, especially for a class that assumes you either have levels in Rogue, Ninja, Bard, or Alchemist (all the current Base Classes that grant Sneak Attack).
Arclord of Nex requires diplomacy and engineering for some... reason. The feats look alright to me though.The feats it requires were designed for characters from Nex, so as you said its perfectly on the job. The Archlords of Nex are major political leaders of Nex, which is why you need Diplomacy. I don't have my Paths of Prestige in front of me, but I do remember that Knowledge (engineering) is required for world fluff.
Aspis Agent uses its craft traps... oddly enough. At worst it requires whips but only uses them for optional feats. Its appraise and history are probably not needed.When you belong to an organization that is basically the antithesis of the Pathfinder Society, an organization out to nah historical artifacts and make a profit on them, why wouldn't you need ranks in Appraise and Knowledge (history)?
Battle Herald requires ranks in perform(oratory) and profession(soldier) even thought it already requires 5 ranks in diplomacy and bluff and levels in cavalier/samurai and a class with inspire courage. This is APG material too.You're surprised that the Battle Herald, a class that is completely based around inspiring soldiers, requires ranks in Perform (oratory) and Profession (soldier)? Considering that the later features prominently in Mass Combat, needing Profession (soldier) is extremely justifiable, but I will admit that Perform (oratory) is odd if you're assuming that your bard is high enough to have Versatile Performance, and therefore could use Perform (oratory) checks instead of Diplomacy checks.
Bellflower Tiller requires teamwork feats but only gives more of them as a class feature and it requires a total of 18 skill ranks. Could probably do without the disguise at least. It also requires CG.You need three levels of Rogue or Vivisectionist or ten levels of sandman to get into this class. You're going to have a minimum of 18 skill ranks + your Int if you take the alchemist route. Yes, its skill intensive, but look at what the class is designed to be. An underground railroad agent. Stealth for sneaking, Knowledge (local) to know where you are and where to bring former slaves, Disguise to disguise everyone, and Survival to find your way to freedom. All of the skill ranks are incredibly justified when you look at what the class is trying to be. I agree with you that the Teamwork Feat aspect of the class is botched because the Bellflower Tiller doesn't get any solo tactics / tactician type abilities to share her feats with her group, though.
One small change that I think would improve the slight power loss of Pathfinder PrCs would be to have them all have multiples of four levels instead of nearly universally having ten. Eight (or the occasional four) levels for organization-related classes, twelve (or the occasional sixteen) levels for the multi-class classes.
Ten levels of 3/4 BAB isn't as appealing as eight or twelve levels of the same thing.
Ten levels of 3/4 BAB isn't as appealing as eight or twelve levels of the same thing.
Alternatively we could all switch to fractional BAB in an attempt to save them from the scrappy heap.
Worth noting: one major comparative weakness of prestige classes is that they can never be favored classes. That is exceptionally harsh.
And a big part of why I look really hard at half-elf for any builds that involve prestige classes.
Probably wouldn't break the game to allow you to pick a class when going into a prestige so you can continue to gain the benefits of favored class, after all, you never stopped being a sorcerer(though to be honest, probably wouldn't break the game if you got favored class in every class you multiclassed too...)
A lot of 3.5 PrC let you get powers abilities way earlier than intended as well. (Master of Shrouds and Frenzied Berserker come to mind)
I agree with a lot of other people though, it seems like archtypes have replaced PrC. Granted, there are a lot of archtypes that just seem, bleh, but then that's probably because they don't do the things that I'd want to play, and someone else is going "oh that's awesome!"
I do miss Master of Shrouds though, lol. I love doing necromancer stuff, and I feel really underwhelmed with the base class wizard going the necromancer route.
Edit: Or a straight cleric with Command Undead, you just don't really get anything really useful till way late.
It is said all the time by people on the forum (and even in FAQ responses by the PDT) that prestige classes are a suboptimal choice for PC advancement. So I wanted to look at why that is and if it should be different.
This.
Why call them prestige classes if they are suboptimal? If taking one makes your character poorer, they should not be called as such.While archetypes are great, they do not let you organically change the direction a character progresses. Take a Bard (Archeologist) and want to change direction as you level? Sorry, no. With a predefined AP, you know the theme and can somewhat plan, but if you homebrew or mix and match modules, the campaign can change directions significantly. Prestige classes let you adjust on the fly.
Retraining goes overboard to fix this, but is not allowed in my home game. Without retraining, you are stuck with your initial choice, which may not be a good fit for the campaign.
/cevah
Why call them prestige classes if they are suboptimal? If taking one makes your character poorer, they should not be called as such.
Because 'waste of time and book space class' doesn't sound as cool as prestige class, if I had to guess why.
I do miss Master of Shrouds though, lol. I love doing necromancer stuff, and I feel really underwhelmed with the base class wizard going the necromancer route.
Yeah, I liked that one too.
Cleric 2/Warlock 1/Master of Shrouds 7/Eldritch Disciple 10 was a planned character that didn't end lasting long (campaign didn't last) but I really liked the idea.
The ACG that's coming out next year has me more convinced than ever that Paizo is abandoning the Prestige Class completely. Which I think is too bad. It'd be nice if there was a middle ground between 3.5's multiple prestige class insanity and the current state of Pathfinder where nearly anything other than straight 1-20 in a base class with an archetype or two is less than ideal.
I don't see why each class being stand alone worth taking on its own without multiclassing or prestige classing being "the best" is somehow a bad situation.
Personally, I'm not against it being viable to take your base class from 1-20. Its just sad that my other options can be pretty poor, especially when some of them actually cost you something to enter. It would be great if they were all great options.
It's not about making single class characters "bad."
A prestige class, to me, represents a transformation of your character. You were something, and you have become something else.
You see lots of examples of this in fiction/movies/comics etc. Its usually a very important element of the character's development.
A single class advancement just doesn't reflect such transition well. Multiclassing into a new base class also has issues, since you are sacrificing higher level abilities for low level abilities in your new class.
A properly designed prestige class can reflect these changes by a)using pre-reqs to limit when they can be taken, so that b) they can provide useful abilities of a character of that level.
There isn't anything wrong with staying with the same base class 1-20. That should be viable and I am glad that PF has made such characters better by improving the base classes.
But I feel there remains a quite vital role for the idea of prestige classes, and they deserve better implementation.
But I feel there remains a quite vital role for the idea of prestige classes, and they deserve better implementation.
4E had a different implementation. They use paragon paths and epic destiny. When you reach 11th and 21st you can choose to take one of those and you would level both at the same time. Wikipedia description of it in the spoiler. Much more streamlined, but 4E is a different game.
Paragon paths and epic destinies are methods of character customization (similar to prestige classes) introduced in 4th edition. Each character may choose a paragon path upon reaching the paragon tier at level 11 and an epic destiny upon reaching the epic tier at level 21.
Paragon paths are often (though not always) class-specific, and some have additional prerequisites. Other paragon paths are restricted to members of a certain race or are associated with a nation or faction in a campaign setting. Paragon paths generally expand on a character's existing abilities. For example, fighter paragon paths improve a characters toughness, resilience, or damage with melee weapons.
Epic destinies generally have looser prerequisites than paragon paths; many are available to multiple classes, and some, such as Demigod and Eternal Seeker, have 21st level as their only prerequisite. Each epic destiny includes at least one way in which a character can establish a legacy and at least one way in which a character can retire. Most epic destinies provide fewer benefits than paragon paths, but the benefits that they provide are far more powerful. A common feature of an epic destiny is to allow characters to (usually once per day) return to life or otherwise continue to function after dying.
Unlike prestige classes, a character may only take a single paragon path and a single epic destiny, and path and destiny advancement is in addition to class advancement rather than being in lieu of it
I still think Prestige classes are cool. They offer things that are unique or specialized. However, the have been "left behind" (along with multiclassing) when they boosted the base classes. I think that we are in a better place than before, but multiclassing and prestige needs some loving.
There could be something simple, like "multiclass feats", similar to that one feat that syngergizes the Druid and the Ranger. And maybe the prestige classes can boost the qualifying class' other abilities as well, like domains and bloodlines.
|
|
But I feel there remains a quite vital role for the idea of prestige classes, and they deserve better implementation.(censered) had a different implementation. They use paragon paths and epic destiny. When you reach 11th and 21st you can choose to take one of those and you would level both at the same time. Wikipedia description of it in the spoiler. Much more streamlined, but (censored) is a different game.
** spoiler omitted **
I think the Archtypes was Paizo's answer to the PP and ED of that edition I will not mention in my post. I, personally, didn't quite like how it was tied to certain levels (11th and 21st) to gain and that it was simply a way to amp power for the progression of the levels instead of being something like what the PrC represented.
To me, PP and ED did not replace the PrC, but instead became a part of the class and a basic tic of a power tree.
I would go as far as to say that there is no real comparative relation between PrC's and PP/ED's.