Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Paths of Prestige

@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.

It's still not a trap. Not every character option is going to be the best. A player in PFS should take into account that some things they want to do may not work out very well. Would a prestige class that you can't take until 10th level be a trap just because it isn't the best choice for PFS? Nope. It just means that the player needs to be aware that some options are better for home games than PFS games. I don't play PFS, there are no groups near enough to me to join, but players don't have to play in any particular scenario do they? I don't know and this is an honest question.

I don't know how useful this archetype would be in a non-PFS game. It's only a trap if your character loses power by taking the option in all but a few corner cases. There are some, like Deadly Sneak for the rogue talent, that look better than they really are.

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

This.

As an adventure writer and developer, one of the things that frustrates me most about the game as it currently stands is the fact that if I want to give a monster prestige classes... there's not a lot of choices. There will be some classes in here that, while they're built for specific groups... will also work pretty well for some monsters. Like putting assassin levels on a succubus, for example, or loremaster levels on a guardian naga.

yay, i was +1'd by james!

/hat tip

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with supporting NPCs, but as a player it's frustrating to pick up a book expecting to enhance or expand to better represent the character concepts that I envision only to find out that there just aren't that many options viable to a player. It's the sort of thing I want to know before I buy the book. (So I as a player would be highly disappointed if only 5 or less of the 30 classes was useful to the player and I only realized this after scrutinizing each class after buying the book).

As a PFS player, I would like prestige classes that I could complete. There are ten prestige classes that can be completed by or before level 12. Only five are legal for PFS play: Balanced Scale of Abadar, Halfling Opportunist, Inheritor’s Crusader, Pathfinder Savant and Steel Falcon.

One of the drawbacks to PFS play is that there are no capstones for classes. I don’t expect any action will be taken in this publication. However, shorter prestige classes should be considered for an APG2.

thanks,

Kodger

I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm glad to get a whole book of PrC options. That's really cool, and I think they play an important role in the game.

That said, I DM for players of all different skill levels, including some whose system mastery and desire to number crunch are pretty low, and who are attracted to exotic PrCs, or those which seem "perfect" for their character. It happens sometime that players pursue these PrCs - sometimes despite my gentle cautions - and are disappointed when their character underperforms.

The game can't stop people from building mechanically underpowered characters. A guy can make a Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Wizard 1/Rogue 1 and think he's playing a Jack-of-all-trades when he's really playing a +1 BAB Cantrip Hoarder, and that guy will often be frustrated with his character's performance. The game can't prevent people from making frustrating characters who don't perform how they dream entirely.

What it can do is help. It can make Wizard 5/Wizard of the Prestigious Order 5 not blatantly feeble compared to Wizard 10. It can help a player not feel stupid for picking a PrC that throws away caster levels for the ability to talk to dingos because the player thought it would be perfect for his Dingo Mage.

I understand that it's a fine line, and we want to avoid the scenario in 3.5 where straight-classing to 20 was extremely rare for most classes. But I'm hoping that this book - which I'm really looking forward to - doesn't turn out to be the complete book of player traps.

If you must - and I don't know that you really must, but if you must include material that you know is typically going to be extremely poor for player characters and present it alongside material that is for player characters, at least label it as such.

I don't speak for Paizo...

But I really don't think they follow the whole idea of "player traps".

Opportunity to play an unique type of character that can be a unique Role-playing experience seems more important to them. The power level of it that could be or may be lower then other options does not seem to be a top priority.

I am not saying that power level is not on their mind at all I am just saying I think that it is not their top concern when they make things like Archetypes, Alternate Classes or Prestige classes.

I don't speak for Paizo...

But I really don't think they follow the whole idea of "player traps".

Opportunity to play an unique type of character that can be a unique Role-playing experience seems more important to them. The power level of it that could be or may be lower then other options does not seem to be a top priority.

I am not saying that power level is not on their mind at all I am just saying I think that it is not their top concern when they make things like Archetypes, Alternate Classes or Prestige classes.

Actually, you bring up problem #2 that I have with the heavy focus on Archetypes over Prestige Classes (instead of a healthy balance of the two). Unique characters don't really exist, because the Archetypes themselves spell out exactly what abilities you're getting, just as if you leveled up in your single class. "Custom" builds are a lot harder to pull off because the base classes are very much catered to the idea of "Stick with me for 20 levels, kid, and we'll go places."

For example, you suffer heavily if you Multiclass Witch with anything, because your Hexes won't scale in power at all. Same if you're an Oracle, because your Revelations won't improve.

In my perfect model of the game, you need to be of a specific class level to unlock an ability, but once you get that ability it scales with your character level. That way, a Wizard 1 / Fighter 19 is almost as good as a Fighter 20, but they're missing their capstone ability, and while they 1 don't have the high level spell selection of a Wizard 20, their 1st level spells and cantrips are just as effective as a Wizard 20's 1st level spells and cantrips (they just have less and can use them less often).

This is where I'm going to finish my little rant, however, because despite my irks with Pathfinder, its still a game I love, and despite being annoyed that there aren't many settings-neutral Prestige Classes, this product has me hopeful enough for that reality to happen that I'll buy it just to give customer support to Prestige Classes in general.

Holy God, yes please.

Have much excite.

How can anyone look down on having more STUFFS to fiddle around with when building a character? You know how players learn which options are more powerful/learn to build characters who are mechanically excellent AND support their concept? By reading books like this and designing characters for fun and contemplating things. If you've never played, then it might be hard, but if you've never played then there's probably someone holding your hand to get you playing anyways. Plus....there's us on the boards!

As a PFS player, I would like prestige classes that I could complete. There are ten prestige classes that can be completed by or before level 12. Only five are legal for PFS play: Balanced Scale of Abadar, Halfling Opportunist, Inheritor’s Crusader, Pathfinder Savant and Steel Falcon.

One of the drawbacks to PFS play is that there are no capstones for classes. I don’t expect any action will be taken in this publication. However, shorter prestige classes should be considered for an APG2.

thanks,

Kodger

You do know that they are extending the max level for PFS, just that to level up past 12 you have to play the sanctioned high-level modules rather than scenarios. You now increase your level when you play them and not just get the other rewards. So with the modules currently available, I think you can now get to level 15 or 16.

The problem is that there is not too much high-level play, at least not here in Toronto. However, what I’m complaining about is the lack of a sense of completion, of arriving at a goal. Prestige classes let you “arrive” before 20th level.

thanks,

Kodger

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...

I see it need repeating, as you have missed it.

1) what is better left to the PC is campaign dependant. In a campaign that is done in a land locked area a seafarer based prestige class or archetype is better left to the NPC. In a campaign that is not based around sieges and field battles a Siege Mage is best left to NPC. Plenty of prestige classes and archetypes are situational and work well only in the right campaign.

2) There should be communication between the GM and the player. If my campaign is meant to be played between the mountains of Varisia and the Cinderlans with fights between small bands of 10 people at most there are classes, archetypes and PrC that will not work. A Pirate will be a bad choice, a Siege Master will be a bad choice, a Gunslinger will be a bad choice (gunpowder and firearms will not be available from traders) and so on.
On the other hand if my adventures will all be city based, with strict laws about dangerous animals enforced in the city, Druid and Ranger archetypes or PrC build around animal companions would be at a serious disadvantage.
So it should be my duty, as a GM, to make inform the players of that.

It is not a "trap" set by the developers. It is a limit of the setting used by the GM.

If my campaign was based around the fact that the player are part of the army and it will see a siege/field battle at almost every level, with the players acting as unit commanders, directing and supporting the actions of the troops, the useful class, archetype and PrC abilities will be very different from the standard choices.

So the "trap" is manufactured by the choices of the player and GM, not by the developers. The developers give us a set of tolls, what we do with them is our responsibility.
Sure, sometime the tools can be better or better explained, but we are responsible of how we use them.
If the player choice was really so bad it is the GM responsibility first to warn the player of the possible problems and then to help him, allowing him to retrain his character after he has realized his error.

Can't stop thinking about the Paladin of Irori. Hoping it's adaptable for monks that revere Korada or some of the other good gods/Empyreals.

Been wanting options for holy monks since forever.

@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."

I think the second part is meant to be addressed to me, as Markatz is supporting your position.

Sure, if you are playing in the Pathfinder Society a bad archetype or PrC choice can ruin your character. But the character build in Patfinder Society games are already somewhat different from those you make at a standard home campaign. In them a character that is passably competent in a plethora of things will be more useful that a hyper specialized character as there is no guaranteed that you will have the usual kind of support from the other player.
A group of composed all from melee oriented characters is a possibility, so you need to have some ranged capability and at least a basic capacity to cure people.
So taking any of the highly specialized PrC is a bad choice there.

Modules: you make an example with the Harrowing. Very well. The character has lived in a vacuum before starting the module? If so it is a character expressly made for that adventure. Sure you can have a few weeks with little fun while playing, but on the other hand you have had the possibility to create a 9th level character from scratch to test a particular build. Not a bad trade in my eyes unless it happen every time you play.

When you are playing a AP the choices of your class, archetype and PrC matter, but again we fall in the GM-player communication camp.
If you want to create a character that is specialized in underground delving and meant for a Darklands campaign it is my duty as a GM to warn you that he will have little chances to use his specialized skills and abilities in the campaign.

What we will see as traps will vary depending on our vision of the game. For me a Wild Rager is a terrible choice of a archetype as it will force a specific kind of play onto the whole group. Other people will see as a nice way to power and accept its drawback as a reasonable cost.

What we do with the tools we get is our responsibility.

A couple of things...

1) I love the idea of this book. :)

2) I was hoping for a PrC that helps the multiclass Rogue/cleric...nut we are not getting that. But I still would like to see a PrC based on the Wasp Queens.

3) A not on 'player traps'....I agree with Deigo Rossi...it is usualy a lack of communication between the GM and the players in the type of game the GM is running. I also notice that new players just don't tend to read anything. They go 'Oh cool...Seige Mage is a cool name.' And don't bother reading it. That is also when a GM should step in and tell them it is not what they think.

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.

I agree that playtesting is important. It doesn't necessarily have to be public, but please playtest judiciously. Don't follow in WotC's 4E footsteps where you have almost no playtesting and end up having to have a half an edition's worth of errata or "rules updates". Then again, I have way more confidence in Paizo when it comes to playtesting than WotC.

...Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful....

...and that is why it exists. Not every option we publish is going to be useful in every campaign, but every option should be useful in *some* campaign. That's not a "trap" in any way.

That will be true for this book as well.

I am particularly excited about the Hellknight Signifiers. I can't believe we haven't seen them earlier. This book is a great boost to the world of Golarion.

Golden-Esque wrote:

...Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful....

...and that is why it exists. Not every option we publish is going to be useful in every campaign, but every option should be useful in *some* campaign. That's not a "trap" in any way.

That will be true for this book as well.

I played a Wizard in Kingmaker. I would have loved to play a Siege Mage in Kingmaker. Would I have been useful if I played a Siege Mage? Sure. I would also have been useful if I played a Warrior NPC class. That doesn't make it a halfway decent archetype. At first level I would have had 5 less spells to prepare (-3 cantrips, -1 school, -1 bond), I would not have access to two awesome school powers, I would give up the awesome scribe spell feat, and I would have an extremely reduced list of spell options (3 opposition schools!).

In exchange I get the ability to fire siege engines from 30 feet away! Awesome! But since I still need a crew to reload it... I'm either not going to be firing it 30 feet away, or I would have a trained siege crew- in which case, why wouldn't they fire the siege engine, and I do something else productive on my turn?

I'm not against things that are situationally useful. I'm fine with classes that only work in some campaigns. But look at the Siege Mage seriously. Are the abilities given really so much more powerful than scribe scroll, arcane bond, and at will cantrips that you also have to give up all the awesome abilities and extra spells that Specialty School give you? And is it still too powerful that you have to have three opposition schools on top of all that?

Seriously, it would be like having a Druid archetype that let's you have a Jellyfish animal companion, but you have to give up Wild Shape in return. The Jellfish isn't any more powerful than the other aquatic companions, but because you get an additional option Wild Shape is gone. Are there people out there who are Jellyfish fans? Yes. Would this Druid be "useful" in an aquatic campaign? Yes. Does that mean that Wild Shape should get taken away for no real reason? Heck no.

That's what I don't want to see: Interesting options that completely neuter the rest of the class for no good reason.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Golden-Esque wrote:

...Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful....

...and that is why it exists. Not every option we publish is going to be useful in every campaign, but every option should be useful in *some* campaign. That's not a "trap" in any way.

That will be true for this book as well.

I played a Wizard in Kingmaker. I would have loved to play a Siege Mage in Kingmaker. Would I have been useful if I played a Siege Mage? Sure. I would also have been useful if I played a Warrior NPC class. That doesn't make it a halfway decent archetype. At first level I would have had 5 less spells to prepare (-3 cantrips, -1 school, -1 bond), I would not have access to two awesome school powers, I would give up the awesome scribe spell feat, and I would have an extremely reduced list of spell options (3 opposition schools!).

In exchange I get the ability to fire siege engines from 30 feet away! Awesome! But since I still need a crew to reload it... I'm either not going to be firing it 30 feet away, or I would have a trained siege crew- in which case, why wouldn't they fire the siege engine, and I do something else productive on my turn?

I'm not against things that are situationally useful. I'm fine with classes that only work in some campaigns. But look at the Siege Mage seriously. Are the abilities given really so much more powerful than scribe scroll, arcane bond, and at will cantrips that you also have to give up all the awesome abilities and extra spells that Specialty School give you? And is it still too powerful that you have to have three opposition schools on top of all that?

Seriously, it would be like having a Druid archetype that let's you have a Jellyfish animal companion, but you have to give up Wild Shape in return. The Jellfish isn't any more powerful than the other aquatic companions, but because you get an additional option Wild Shape is gone. Are there people out there who are Jellyfish fans? Yes. Would...

That was the gist of what I was trying to say, and I thank you for saying it much more eloquently then I did.

Aldori Sword-Lord Fighter Archetype + "Aldori Duelist" sounds badass!

Merkatz wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

...Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful....

...and that is why it exists. Not every option we publish is going to be useful in every campaign, but every option should be useful in *some* campaign. That's not a "trap" in any way.

That will be true for this book as well.

I played a Wizard in Kingmaker. I would have loved to play a Siege Mage in Kingmaker. Would I have been useful if I played a Siege Mage? Sure. I would also have been useful if I played a Warrior NPC class. That doesn't make it a halfway decent archetype. At first level I would have had 5 less spells to prepare (-3 cantrips, -1 school, -1 bond), I would not have access to two awesome school powers, I would give up the awesome scribe spell feat, and I would have an extremely reduced list of spell options (3 opposition schools!).

In exchange I get the ability to fire siege engines from 30 feet away! Awesome! But since I still need a crew to reload it... I'm either not going to be firing it 30 feet away, or I would have a trained siege crew- in which case, why wouldn't they fire the siege engine, and I do something else productive on my turn?

I'm not against things that are situationally useful. I'm fine with classes that only work in some campaigns. But look at the Siege Mage seriously. Are the abilities given really so much more powerful than scribe scroll, arcane bond, and at will cantrips that you also have to give up all the awesome abilities and extra spells that Specialty School give you? And is it still too powerful that you have to have three opposition schools on top of all that?

Seriously, it would be like having a Druid archetype that let's you have a Jellyfish animal companion, but you have to give up Wild Shape in return. The Jellfish isn't any more powerful than the other aquatic companions, but because you get an additional option Wild Shape is gone. Are there people out there who are Jellyfish

Sounds awesome, I will have to make a Siege Mage for my next character.

Golden-Esque wrote:

...Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful....

...and that is why it exists. Not every option we publish is going to be useful in every campaign, but every option should be useful in *some* campaign. That's not a "trap" in any way.

That will be true for this book as well.

See now I would think that this would have been common sense.

I'm not going to use every option for every situation. That's just not realistic at all. The same way I dont buy every Paizo product because it may or may not appeal to me at all.

Golden-Esque wrote:

Merkatz wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

...Sure, in a game like Kingmaker a Seige Master is going to be useful....

...and that is why it exists. Not every option we publish is going to be useful in every campaign, but every option should be useful in *some* campaign. That's not a "trap" in any way.

That will be true for this book as well.

I played a Wizard in Kingmaker. I would have loved to play a Siege Mage in Kingmaker. Would I have been useful if I played a Siege Mage? Sure. I would also have been useful if I played a Warrior NPC class. That doesn't make it a halfway decent archetype. At first level I would have had 5 less spells to prepare (-3 cantrips, -1 school, -1 bond), I would not have access to two awesome school powers, I would give up the awesome scribe spell feat, and I would have an extremely reduced list of spell options (3 opposition schools!).

In exchange I get the ability to fire siege engines from 30 feet away! Awesome! But since I still need a crew to reload it... I'm either not going to be firing it 30 feet away, or I would have a trained siege crew- in which case, why wouldn't they fire the siege engine, and I do something else productive on my turn?

I'm not against things that are situationally useful. I'm fine with classes that only work in some campaigns. But look at the Siege Mage seriously. Are the abilities given really so much more powerful than scribe scroll, arcane bond, and at will cantrips that you also have to give up all the awesome abilities and extra spells that Specialty School give you? And is it still too powerful that you have to have three opposition schools on top of all that?

Seriously, it would be like having a Druid archetype that let's you have a Jellyfish animal companion, but you have to give up Wild Shape in return. The Jellfish isn't any more powerful than the other aquatic companions, but because you get an additional option Wild Shape is gone. Are there people out there who are

...

I recommend investing in Craft Construct so you can make constructs to reload your siege engines.

I am particularly excited about the Hellknight Signifiers. I can't believe we haven't seen them earlier. This book is a great boost to the world of Golarion.

I'm especially hoping that they can work with maguses (magi?). I'd love to see some good magus-related PrCs.

Aldori Sword-Lord Fighter Archetype + "Aldori Duelist" sounds badass!

I'm sure it will be. :)

An Old Cultist PrC that can be taken by any spellcaster (divine or arcane) would be just super. Like the 3.5 Alienist, only less dumb.

Congratulations to Ben Bruck!!!

+1. Nice job, Ben!

Despite the name and implications, also hoping Paladin of Irori is something single-classed monks can go into.

Despite the name and implications, also hoping Paladin of Irori is something single-classed monks can go into.

Given James' statement that it specifically supports multiclassing of paladin and monk (and, as you say, the fact that the name is the Paladin of Irori, not the Monk of Irori), I wouldn't count on it.

Mikaze wrote:

Despite the name and implications, also hoping Paladin of Irori is something single-classed monks can go into.

Given James' statement that it specifically supports multiclassing of paladin and monk (and, as you say, the fact that the name is the Paladin of Irori, not the Monk of Irori), I wouldn't count on it.

I figured that was probably the case. I'm still looking forward to seeing it, though I do hope holy/celestial-flavored options for monks(and other non-divine classes) come out eventually.

ALDORI SWORDLORD PRESTIGE CLASS?! WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

... Wicked excited. I was not all that impressed with the Aldori Swordlord options that came out of the Inner Sea World Guide and Primer. It left me feeling as if there was more to an Aldori Swordlord that just wasn't being touched upon and throwing on some duelist levels was really only a bandage over the excessively bleeding wound which was my longing to explore this very unique style of swordsmanship.

ALDORI SWORDLORD PRESTIGE CLASS?! WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

... Wicked excited. I was not all that impressed with the Aldori Swordlord options that came out of the Inner Sea World Guide and Primer. It left me feeling as if there was more to an Aldori Swordlord that just wasn't being touched upon and throwing on some duelist levels was really only a bandage over the excessively bleeding wound which was my longing to explore this very unique style of swordsmanship.

I think that considering the archetype stopped getting abilities at Level 12, a Prestige Class to take you from 13 to 20 is perfect. I personally liked the archetype, just never had a chance to play it.

Paladin of Irori is neither the only paladin friendly NOR the only monk friendly option in this book.

In fact, one of my goals was to make sure that there was at least ONE cool choice for all of the base classes and all of the core races. There's a little doubling up here and there, but still.

Paladin of Irori is neither the only paladin friendly NOR the only monk friendly option in this book.

In fact, one of my goals was to make sure that there was at least ONE cool choice for all of the base classes and all of the core races. There's a little doubling up here and there, but still.

Your Summoner class should be interesting!

Any chance of seeing a Pathfinderized revamp of the Force Missile Mage from Dragon 328?

James Jacobs wrote:

Paladin of Irori is neither the only paladin friendly NOR the only monk friendly option in this book.

In fact, one of my goals was to make sure that there was at least ONE cool choice for all of the base classes and all of the core races. There's a little doubling up here and there, but still.

Your Summoner class should be interesting!

I will weep tears of joy if I see a PrC for summoners.

James Jacobs wrote:

Paladin of Irori is neither the only paladin friendly NOR the only monk friendly option in this book.

In fact, one of my goals was to make sure that there was at least ONE cool choice for all of the base classes and all of the core races. There's a little doubling up here and there, but still.

Your Summoner class should be interesting!

'

Heh... I hope so...

I can't remember off the top of my head if it's a prestige class that ONLY summoners can use, though. Summoners are, after all, the rarest class to show up in Golarion, except maybe for gunslingers.

Any chance of seeing a Pathfinderized revamp of the Force Missile Mage from Dragon 328?

Pretty much no chance at all, for 2 reasons:

1) That prestige class, along with almost everything in Dragon Magazine, is not open content. We can't use it or update it. We could do something SIMILAR, but...

2) The prestige classes in this book were designed by the thought process of "What group/religion/organization/whatever in Golarion needs a prestige class," not "What spell effect/class combo/feat combo/whatever needs a prestige class." There MIGHT be a class in this book that excels at force effects... but it'd be a coincidence and would surprise me since none of the 30 prestige classes I concepted and ordered for the book really had that as part of their marching orders for the authors to create.

2) The prestige classes in this book were designed by the thought process of "What group/religion/organization/whatever in Golarion needs a prestige class,"

Might there be Kalistocracy or Arcanamirium themed Prestige Classes? Those are two of my favorite 'factions.'

Huh, I would've expected far more gunslingers than summoners. Interesting.

Huh, I would've expected far more gunslingers than summoners. Interesting.

There are a few classes that'd be cool for gunslingers in here... one of which is specifically for gun using classes.

From the description, I take it this book will not have any prestige classes connected to the factions, deities, or cultures of the Dragon Empires. But, what about the Kusari-Gama or the Pathfinder Society's Lantern Lodge? Is there anything in this book for characters with connections to these organizations?

From the description, I take it this book will not have any prestige classes connected to the factions, deities, or cultures of the Dragon Empires. But, what about the Kusari-Gama or the Pathfinder Society's Lantern Lodge? Is there anything in this book for characters with connections to these organizations?

The organizations represented in this book are pretty much all Inner Sea region groups. No Kusari-Gama...

...and no specific PFS factions, since that'd set up some weirdness for PFS play—we'd rather the book contain 30 prestige classes that are as open as possible to PFS play rather than limiting them to factions, since we don't limit base classes to factions.

Any chance of a "big brain" inversion of the Master Chymist prestige class, for mindchemists who want to put their MODOK on?

Any chance of a "big brain" inversion of the Master Chymist prestige class, for mindchemists who want to put their MODOK on?

Actually, I am very intrigued by that possibility as well since my Alchemist in PFS is a Mindchemist.

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:

Any chance of a "big brain" inversion of the Master Chymist prestige class, for mindchemists who want to put their MODOK on?

Actually, I am very intrigued by that possibility as well since my Alchemist in PFS is a Mindchemist.

I wrote up my own version a while back, it might come in handy. :)

Cheapy wrote:

Huh, I would've expected far more gunslingers than summoners. Interesting.

There are a few classes that'd be cool for gunslingers in here... one of which is specifically for gun using classes.

I think what he's referring to, James, is your comment that summoners AND gunslingers are in close competition for least common class in Golarion.

For another question, would an adaptation of the Grit system for other combat styles be something that could pop up into a Prestige Class.

That's what I was referring to, but my mind is now ablaze at a PrC that spans all the gun using classes.

/tangent

short of adding a new universal "caster level" stat.

I suggest Magic Rating.

/end tangent