Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Paths of Prestige

*Removes foot from mouth*

Needs pepper.

HA! Nicely played! :)

Paladins of Irori? Yeah, smite evil with fists. So awesome.

The only thing that concerns me is the use of archetypes as prerequisites. One or two here and there would be fine, but if 5 or 10 of these new PrCs have archetype prereqs then I am going to be sorely disappointed. The fact that you can accidentally bar your entry into certain PrCs during character creation just seems ludicrous. I can just see it now: "Sorry Joe, no you can't take the Awesome Bandit Lord™ PrC because when we made characters six months ago you just made a Rogue with a bunch of banditry related skills and tendencies, but you didn't make a Bandit archetype Rogue. Too bad."

And on top of that, having archetype requirements are extremely limiting. How many different ways are there to go into the Dragon Disciple PrC? Probably a hundred. How many ways are there to get into the Winter Witch PrC? One.

Like I said, a few of these are fine. A Winter Witch PrC sounds pretty awesome, actually. But I will get more use and more mileage out of the more flexible PrCs.

We're only doing this once, with the winter witch. And we're doing it PRECISELY because we want ALL characters who take that prestige class to be witches to a certain extent. It is, to a certain extent, a sneaky way of saying "Prerequisite: At least 1 level of witch."

The thing I like a lot about prestige classes, and why I actually like them more than archetypes, is precisely BECAUSE they're so much more flexible; you can be multiple different classes and still qualify for a prestige class, whereas if you want the swashbuckler archetype you have to be a rogue. Too bad if you want to be a fighter or bard or cleric swashbuckler!

Are there going to be reprints of prestige classes from other sources, such as the Hellknight, Dai'vrat, Low Templar, Spherewalker?

I can't decide if having them all in the same place is better than having 30 new ones. I'm leaning towards the former.

I'll have to double check the outline... but I don't think there's any reprints in this one at all.

We've reprinted the Hellknight and Low Templar in the core world book; can't get much more centralized than that. And the Spherewalker, as part of Sean's deity articles... might have another thing in store for its future, for example...

Will there be anything extra for previous prestige classes? This seems like the third time Hellknights will be published again.

New Deity book maybe? Would be cool, I for one would love an update of the chevelier PrC...

Will there be anything extra for previous prestige classes? This seems like the third time Hellknights will be published again.

Actually... the prestige class in this book is a Hellknight signifier; we've not done that class yet. It's the spellcasting version of a Hellknight...

There's a reason this book is in the Campaign Setting line, folks... my philosophy is that prestige classes are MUCH BETTER when they are used to present world-specific stuff. Like Hellknights, harrowers, red mantis assassins, and low templars. ALL of the prestige classes in this book are built to support Golarion-specific organizations and options. Several of them will work not only as PC options, but as prestige classes you can put onto monsters (something Pathfinder is SORELY missing at this point). And they'll all bring with them some new flavor to 30 different organizations and philosophies and faiths and factions and whatevers that need more info, in many cases.

Fully subscribed. Some prestige class is general enough that it will live well without a link to a specific world, but most of those can be changed to a Archetype. The largest percentage of the PrC will be greatly enhanced by being part of ta specific world. A lot of the PrC I have seen in the 3.X books had the problem of feeling somewhat empty without this kind of link. Sure, the GM could create a link to his game world, but a lot of PrC had a tendency to be chosen because they were a path to more power and not for their flavour.

There are oracle prestige classes?
Any hint on the prerequisites if those exist?

damn cool indeedy

I already want to check out the swordlord. I like fluffy PrCs. Those were always the nost interesting to me

Have any of you guys seen Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia? My buddy and I are big fans, and one day after watching the episode "The Nightman Cometh", we tried to do a Pathfinder representation of Dayman, a paladin-monk hybrid (if you listen to the lyrics of the song, you'll see where we were coming from) just for fun. The paladin of Irori PrC should fit this nicely!

On an unrelated note, is there any chance of seeing a new non-magical assassin PrC? Perhaps a Daggermark Assassin? It was stated in a previous discussion that the current Assassin PrC from the Core Rulebook was more suitable for NPCs. Although I like the idea of having these nasty villains be a viable threat to the PCs, I think it would be great to give the PCs this type of option without fluffing up a rogue (who would need to wait until 20th level to get a beefed up "death attack" with master strike or houseruling to allow a rogue to take the Assassinate ninja trick) or through gimping said rogue by having him/her take levels in the current Assassin PrC.

I too would love to see a Technic League Prestige class, if nothing else for that it would bring more Numeria fluff. I wonder if this was the feeler for Numeria that couldn't be mentioned because it wasn't announced yet.

I just found the next must-get Pathfinder book right here, and I really hope the fluff and the crunch will get along nicely :D

So, will there be a stat block example for each PrC?

The thing I like a lot about prestige classes, and why I actually like them more than archetypes, is precisely BECAUSE they're so much more flexible; you can be multiple different classes and still qualify for a prestige class, whereas if you want the swashbuckler archetype you have to be a rogue.

For what it's worth, I find hearing that to be very reassuring. One of my least favorite things about PrCs is when they require levels in a specific class. Even worse are the ones that require levels in two specific classes and then end up just being a hybrid of those classes that combines all the best aspects of both.

Fortunately, I think your quality control is a bit better than WotC's was, so I'm not worried about having a glut of incredibly specific, obscenely overpowered PrCs. ;-)

@James Jacobs: I agree that you guys really don't need to playtest your stuff anymore. I really don't think anybody here would suggest otherwise. It is we just LOVE getting those sneak peeks, and the feeling that we are part of the Paizo Design Team (in some small way).

@James Jacobs: I agree that you guys really don't need to playtest your stuff anymore. I really don't think anybody here would suggest otherwise. It is we just LOVE getting those sneak peeks, and the feeling that we are part of the Paizo Design Team (in some small way).

I disagree. Playtesting should always be made to check for the quality of the product. I don't want a scenario of pig in a poke (explained here) to occur when I buy something, hoping for prestige classes that are worth taking without being overpowered.

And here's another vote for some Technic League love :-)

xorial wrote:

@James Jacobs: I agree that you guys really don't need to playtest your stuff anymore. I really don't think anybody here would suggest otherwise. It is we just LOVE getting those sneak peeks, and the feeling that we are part of the Paizo Design Team (in some small way).

I disagree. Playtesting should always be made to check for the quality of the product. I don't want a scenario of pig in a poke (explained here) to occur when I buy something, hoping for prestige classes that are worth taking without being overpowered.

And you honestly think that Paizo would do that to you???? I know anybody can make a mistake, but the pig in a poke reference refers to a scam. Not a good analogy.

xorial wrote:

@James Jacobs: I agree that you guys really don't need to playtest your stuff anymore. I really don't think anybody here would suggest otherwise. It is we just LOVE getting those sneak peeks, and the feeling that we are part of the Paizo Design Team (in some small way).

I disagree. Playtesting should always be made to check for the quality of the product. I don't want a scenario of pig in a poke (explained here) to occur when I buy something, hoping for prestige classes that are worth taking without being overpowered.

Paizo and overpowered? Ha ha.

Also: this project is lead by Jason, if he can keep up the mojo he had with Paladin or APG classes, we can be safe about the power level here.

Having read the description and James's answers in this thread, I'm surprised by how much I don't dislike this book, at least so far.

I never cared much for prestige classes, as in 3.X they seemed to encourage horribly overpowered min-maxing (along with certain feat builds). When Paizo started adding 20th-level capstone abilities to their base classes, and then class archetypes, I was pretty much ready to write off prestige classes for good.

However, I think James is right to tie prestige classes to specific organizations. I've always felt that this helps to better define just what, in-game, a prestige class is actually supposed to represent (take that, dragon disciple!) - what separates it from a core class or an archetype in terms of its identity. Tying them to organizations is a very wise decision, in my opinion.

+1 Alzrius. This is THE way to approach PrCs, instead of using them to fix dead levels and other design shortcomings of base classes.

There are oracle prestige classes?
Any hint on the prerequisites if those exist?

Yes. One of the things I tried to make sure when picking the 30 prestige classes for this book was to try to ensure that there's at least 1 prestige class in there that's a great choice for every core race and ever base class. Many get far more than 1 great choice.

And it's FAR too early to start revealing hints.

Also: this project is lead by Jason, if he can keep up the mojo he had with Paladin or APG classes, we can be safe about the power level here.

Actually, the project is currently led by me. Jason's writing one of the prestige classes in the book. One of our designers will likely give the book a look over during development, but that's not necessarily gonna be Jason...

I too would love to see a Technic League Prestige class, if nothing else for that it would bring more Numeria fluff. I wonder if this was the feeler for Numeria that couldn't be mentioned because it wasn't announced yet.

Each prestige class has 2 pages. That's not enough room to do much with a concept that would rely upon rules for lasers and stuff that we don't yet have rules for. AKA: NO technic league stuff in this book at all.

So, will there be a stat block example for each PrC?

Nope.

Starglyte wrote:

I too would love to see a Technic League Prestige class, if nothing else for that it would bring more Numeria fluff. I wonder if this was the feeler for Numeria that couldn't be mentioned because it wasn't announced yet.

Each prestige class has 2 pages. That's not enough room to do much with a concept that would rely upon rules for lasers and stuff that we don't yet have rules for. AKA: NO technic league stuff in this book at all.

Well... that gave me a big, old SAD. guess I'll just have to be happy with ONLY getting 30 shiny, new prestige classes ;-)

I disagree. Playtesting should always be made to check for the quality of the product. I don't want a scenario of pig in a poke (explained here) to occur when I buy something, hoping for prestige classes that are worth taking without being overpowered.

Playtesting is important... but it's not the MOST important part of the process. And there are far more ways to playtest than a massive public playtest... the public playtests are fun... but they also take a LOT of time and effort on our part to coordinate and manage. The playtesting for elements in this class will be handled by the authors and in-house as appropriate... but again, prestige class design is hardly anything THAT new. This book isn't a place where we'll be experimenting with wildly new class abilities like grit or eidolons or the like.

Sad about the technic, but understandable.

Starglyte wrote:

I too would love to see a Technic League Prestige class, if nothing else for that it would bring more Numeria fluff. I wonder if this was the feeler for Numeria that couldn't be mentioned because it wasn't announced yet.

Each prestige class has 2 pages. That's not enough room to do much with a concept that would rely upon rules for lasers and stuff that we don't yet have rules for. AKA: NO technic league stuff in this book at all.

Bummer. For what its worth, one of the few things I do like about 3E was the prestige classes. I won't quite write off the book just yet. Never know what interesting stuff you guys can put in there.

SIGNIFIER ???......................WANT

Damn, August is going to be hard on the wallet.....

ALL of the prestige classes in this book are built to support Golarion-specific organizations and options. Several of them will work not only as PC options, but as prestige classes you can put onto monsters (something Pathfinder is SORELY missing at this point).

o.0

It's decided, I'm buying this book! Pseudodragon Mammoth Rider FTW!

Gorbacz wrote:

Also: this project is lead by Jason, if he can keep up the mojo he had with Paladin or APG classes, we can be safe about the power level here.

Actually, the project is currently led by me.

That's good to hear. These PrCs should be a good solid shot of pure Golarion to the arm. At 2 pages each, that's enough for some good mechanics and a generous dose of background. I'm looking forward to this one.

Also: this project is lead by Jason, if he can keep up the mojo he had with Paladin or APG classes, we can be safe about the power level here.

*looks at Paladin errata* Are you sure?

Prestige classes for orginizations, religions, etc. are nice but I would still like to see a fey, celestial, etc. versions of the dragon desciple, or a prestige class for sorcerers to enhance and gain more bloodline abilities at the cost of some spellcasting ability.

There weren't a lot of prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 that I liked except for Arcane Fist, Wild Soul, and like three really good bard ones, but I can't remember there names.

Prestige classes for orginizations, religions, etc. are nice but I would still like to see a fey, celestial, etc. versions of the dragon desciple, or a prestige class for sorcerers to enhance and gain more bloodline abilities at the cost of some spellcasting ability.

There weren't a lot of prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 that I liked except for Arcane Fist, Wild Soul, and like three really good bard ones, but I can't remember there names.

I agree for the other racial versions of Dragon Disciple.

I would also like the Arcane Fist and Sacred fist to be brought back.

Are the prestige classes going to be balanced around the assumption that Favored Classes are in the game? If so, then how will the Prestige Classes in this book be adjusted to compensate for this inherent disadvantage?

I really hope that this book isn't 64-page of player-traps. I must admit, the Inner Sea Pirate (a clear player-trap) has me very skeptical.

-Matt

I really hope that this book isn't 64-page of player-traps. I must admit, the Inner Sea Pirate (a clear player-trap) has me very skeptical.

-Matt

I am rather new, what is a player-trap?

AND PRE-ORDERED!!! As soon as I read the description, I was sold on it.

Mattastrophic wrote:

I really hope that this book isn't 64-page of player-traps. I must admit, the Inner Sea Pirate (a clear player-trap) has me very skeptical.

-Matt

I am rather new, what is a player-trap?

A player trap is a character option that while it looks cool and thematic, ends up severely weakening your character because of poor design choices. An example of this in Pathfinder would be the Seige Master archetype for Wizards. You trade a lot of your core Wizard powers for extreme specialization with Seige Engines; something that you're almost never going to have access to because most are hard to transport and whatnot.

Also, while I can understand that James and possibly others on the Creative Team like Prestige Classes better when they're settings specific and have a lot of world flavor, that doesn't mean that ignoring settings neutral prestige classes for important archetypes that don't fit well into a single category should be ignored entirely. One of the Prestige Class's major functions is to support multiclassing, which is an option that I personally think is hurt hard in Pathfinder (especially for spellcasters because with the current design philosophy, you don't GET anything for taking levels in two spellcasting classes).

For example, when you take levels in melee-oriented classes, things often transfer between class to class. Feats don't care what class you are as long as you qualify for them, your base attack bonus stacks, etc. Spellcasters, however, have to keep EVERYTHING seperate, so that a witch 5 / wizard 5 is nowhere near as powerful as a 10th level character (they don't care that they get a better Base Attack Bonus, and most Metamagic feats work best as your maximum spell level rises). Because of this, going for Mystic Theurge is a massive player trap, as is being a double-dip spellcaster of any kind.

This is ultimately one of the rules I really wish would change about the game, and its admittedly something that not even a good Prestige Class or two can fix short of adding a new universal "caster level" stat.

Mattastrophic wrote:

I really hope that this book isn't 64-page of player-traps. I must admit, the Inner Sea Pirate (a clear player-trap) has me very skeptical.

-Matt

I am rather new, what is a player-trap?

90% of the time a player trap is someone taking a feat/archetype/set of abilities meant primarily for NPC and then crying that they aren't as powerful as other options.

Take Golden-Esque example of the Siege Master archetype for Wizards. It is meant primarily for a NPC that will be colourful and maybe useful, not for a PC, unless you have a atypical campaign with lots of sieges and battles with siege weapons.

Yes, it is possible that someone will take that archetype thinking it will make him special, but there should be some serious short circuit in the communications between the GM and the player for that to happen in most campaigns. It is akin at taking a sea based archetype in a campaign that will be located in the middle of a continent.

I'm kind of upset at this. I love prestige classes, unlike many, even as a DM. People illegitimately fear new options and the mythical "glut", but a game only has as much options as YOU allow it. What one finds trash, another finds treasure. Some may not like extra game material, others do whether it's in the form of new spells or new PrC. I never understood why, of all the new game material, PrC are hated so much. We always found PrC to be half the fun of character creation! Why should we suffer just because there's a large number of people that can't get a tighter hold on their own gaming sessions by limiting PrC?

My expectations were a book on prestige classes but for the Pathfinder RPG line. Not for the Campaign Setting line. How exactly am I supposed to adapt these to a Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun game, for example? Are the PrC abilities going to be just too world-specific now? I was hoping for more "generic" prestige classes like what is found in the Advanced Player's Guide. Instead, I see this and I am very disappointed.

I know James mentioned adapting these to your campaign as needed, but I hate how PrC are tied to world-specific things like a type of magic or organization. Generic PrC are much better. I know some people will call out "You have archetypes for that." but we find archtypes VERY LIMITING. If archtypes allowed "swapping" (as in, I can choose which class abilities to swap and I don't have to take the entire archtype and lose class abilities I never wanted to lose) then I'd be fin with archetypes. But they don't, and it's one of the things about archetypes I really wish the Pathfinder developers would consider making an exception and making errata stating you can "swap" abilities.

Here's to hoping an Advanced Player's Guide II, then. More options for all classes plus new, generic PrC. :(

90% of the time a player trap is someone taking a feat/archetype/set of abilities meant primarily for NPC and then crying that they aren't as powerful as other options.

Take Golden-Esque example of the Siege Master archetype for Wizards. It is meant primarily for a NPC that will be colourful and maybe useful, not for a PC, unless you have a atypical campaign with lots of sieges and battles with siege weapons.

Yes, it is possible that someone will take that archetype thinking it will make him special, but there should be some serious short circuit in the communications between the GM and the player for that to happen in most campaigns. It is akin at taking a sea based archetype in a campaign that will be located in the middle of a continent.

I'm sorry, but that might be the silliest thing I ever heard. How do new players decide which options are NPC choices and which ones aren't? We have clearly labeled NPC Classes and we have clearly labeled Monster feats. But the Wizard is a PC class. A Player Character Class. Archetypes were first introduced in a book called the Advanced Players Guide. Hell, Ultimate Magic lists all of these archetypes and options (such as the Siege Mage) as "new player character options."

So why did you decide that the Siege Mage is an NPC class? There isn't anything in any book that flat out tells people which class options are more useful for PC classes and which ones should only be used for NPCs. The name Siege Mage sounds cool. The idea of being able to easily tear down fortifications sounds cool. It's something that I would like to do as a PC. But actually looking at the archetype we can see that it is absolutely horrible. So since it sounds like a cool class, and is something that some PCs would like to do, the only reason that I can see that you would label this as an NPC class is because it is horrible. That means the only reason you see this as an NPC class is because of your system mastery. And the need for system mastery is what leads to player traps. If the Siege Mage is meant to be an NPC class, then it should be spelled out as being one.

I actually had a pretty sweet Siege Mage once.

Diego Rossi wrote:

90% of the time a player trap is someone taking a feat/archetype/set of abilities meant primarily for NPC and then crying that they aren't as powerful as other options.

Take Golden-Esque example of the Siege Master archetype for Wizards. It is meant primarily for a NPC that will be colourful and maybe useful, not for a PC, unless you have a atypical campaign with lots of sieges and battles with siege weapons.

Yes, it is possible that someone will take that archetype thinking it will make him special, but there should be some serious short circuit in the communications between the GM and the player for that to happen in most campaigns. It is akin at taking a sea based archetype in a campaign that will be located in the middle of a continent.

I'm sorry, but that might be the silliest thing I ever heard. How do new players decide which options are NPC choices and which ones aren't? We have clearly labeled NPC Classes and we have clearly labeled Monster feats. But the Wizard is a PC class. A Player Character Class. Archetypes were first introduced in a book called the Advanced Players Guide. Hell, Ultimate Magic lists all of these archetypes and options (such as the Siege Mage) as "new player character options."

So why did you decide that the Siege Mage is an NPC class? There isn't anything in any book that flat out tells people which class options are more useful for PC classes and which ones should only be used for NPCs. The name Siege Mage sounds cool. The idea of being able to easily tear down fortifications sounds cool. It's something that I would like to do as a PC. But actually looking at the archetype we can see that it is absolutely horrible. So since it sounds like a cool class, and is something that some PCs would like to do, the only reason that I can see that you would label this as an NPC class is because it is horrible. That means the only reason you see this as an NPC class is because of your system mastery. And the need for system mastery is...

Or the GM can be more involved in the character creation process and make sure that the players know some options are not suitable for the campaign.

Most of the time I have seen people whine about a player trap has been to whine that an option that isn't great 100% of the time is a trap that should be avoided. There are some things that are more optimal than others, but that doesn't mean the less optimal ones aren't viable or fun. That is often the course taken when people complain about player traps.

So are these prestige classes going to be for the players characters or for the GMs' NPCs?
(As much as I love the flavor Paizo puts out, some books failed hard on my expectations such as the Orc's Race book)

Since its in the Campaign Setting line, i suspect a mix of PC and NPC targetted PrC's.

Awesome...

I will be sorely disappointed if this book doesn't doesn't have the Chelaxian Dwarven Librarian PrC... ;)

Hellknight Signifier sold me (as if I didn't need selling to begin with). :)
I've been trying to look for a way to do a Signifier using a Magus/Hellknight PrC but never quite got it right. This is gonna rock!

@Bob Loblaw: Let's look at this another way, then. What if I'm the GM of a offical Pathfinder Society Scenario, a game where I'm not supposed to do major rewrites or changes to the adventure. Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful. But what about in a module like the Harrowing, where my players are trapped in an alternate plane? Even the most friendly adventure paths are going to have dungeon crawls that I can't bring my catapult into. The fact that a good GM (which I consider myself one) can FORCE an option into being useful does not automatically make the option useful and any less of a player trap.

Look at an archetype like the Arcane Bomber. Regardless of whether or not the abilities traded make for a good trade (for some they may, for some they may not), the arcane bomb ability is one that is useful in a variety of situations. I don't have to rewrite sections of an adventure or design an entire campaign around one weird game choice a player made. That does not make for a good archetype, in my opinion.

@Markatz: You're confusing NPC class with NPC option. An NPC option is one that is better given to an NPC because of any of the following reasons A) said NPC is disposable. B) an NPC does not have to look special or worry about whether or not they're performing in every encounter; they're the specialist to aid the PC's general talents. C) the NPC is designed to counter something the PCs are doing or are designed to be used by a PC to overcome a challenge, thereby gaining GM insight.

It's the age-old GM saying of "Why do I care if I give this underpowered option to this NPC? I have an infinite number of possible NPCs at my command, and I can switch out which one I'm using with a simple fiat."

@Thalls Greatlight: I've been making posts like that for the better part of the past year and a half. I'm excited to see this book happen, to be honest. I really wish a 3PP would step up into the limelight of good settings-general Prestige Class design and succeed; maybe get some gears cranking over in Seattle.

@Ragnarok Aeon: In my honest opinion, there are no PC-only Prestige Classes, because a good PC Prestige Class is just as useful for NPCs. There are only Prestige Classes that are good for everyone and Prestige Classes that only work for NPCs.