Somewhere I read that these additional rules for the 3.5 dmg prestige classes would be coming out a short time after beta was published, and there was a program for other stuff as well.
Please sir, What is the proposed timeline for this stuff?
|
Somewhere I read that these additional rules for the 3.5 dmg prestige classes would be coming out a short time after beta was published, and there was a program for other stuff as well.
Please sir, What is the proposed timeline for this stuff?
Personally, I just did the skill conversions (since there's a player who's chomping at the bit to be an assassin).
Creative Director
|
Somewhere I read that these additional rules for the 3.5 dmg prestige classes would be coming out a short time after beta was published, and there was a program for other stuff as well.
Please sir, What is the proposed timeline for this stuff?
The official playtest schedule (found here) holds the key.
Playtesting of prestige classes begins on November 24th. We'll be aiming to get the Beta web enhancement for prestige classes up and online for download sometime before that date; I'm not sure what the actual date is off the top of my head, but sometime in mid-November's the goal.
Hmmm...I'm most interested how the Dragon Disciple will end up. It has an unusually large hit die, a wonky bonus spell mechanic, and significant overlap with the Draconic sorcerer bloodline.
Hmmm...I'm most interested how the Dragon Disciple will end up. It has an unusually large hit die, a wonky bonus spell mechanic, and significant overlap with the Draconic sorcerer bloodline.
I want to see how they go with arcane multiclass prestige classes
-mystic theurge
-arcane trickster
-eldritch knight
especially eldritch knight-- it has never been done well in 3e (I have not tried monte cooks version) and I miss my old fighter/magicuser
|
I have always been very disappointed in prestige classes. The only reason I ever see to go into one is for story. I find the core classes more focused and stronger than prestige classes. Even for NPC villians, they just don't seem to work for me. It's like they nerf the focus of the core class and throw in a couple of wonky powers to neutralize one really cool power later on.
I did like the Dervish prestige class though. It seemed like it was inspired by Iron Heroes, though it may have come out prior to that book.
I want to see how they go with arcane multiclass prestige classes
-mystic theurge
-arcane trickster
-eldritch knightespecially eldritch knight-- it has never been done well in 3e (I have not tried monte cooks version) and I miss my old fighter/magicuser
What do you dislike about those classes (other than the fact that they're a bit bland)?
|
Well, some prestige classes are bland and lack focus, some are really underpowered,some are overpowered (frenzied berserker), and some are necessary patches for multiclass combos that don't work well (eldritch knight, mystic theurge). You can easily adjust hit dice and skill ranks to be in line with Pathfinder's changes, and then wait until the updates for any further changes.
Some are necessary patches for multiclass combos that don't work well (eldritch knight, mystic theurge).
Currently, I'm working on turning about 90% of the 3.5 prestige classes (and many of the "new" base classes) into feats/feat chains for core classes. Those ones you mentioned (EldKt, MystTheur, etc.) would remain out of necessity, but the Hexblade, Bladesinger, Spellsword, Arcane Archer, etc. are all much simpler as Ftr/Wiz (or Sor)/EldKt with appropriate feat selections.
Likewise, the unique class features for the Samurai, Cavalier, etc. can become feats, and those whole classes turned back into fighters.
I like the idea of feat progressions, and it might be possible in Pathfinder with the additional feats. But, what I'd LOVE to see is for prestige classes go the way of Paragon and Epic paths in 4E and become "addons" to existing classes.
All it would take is some re-working of them to make it so they have specific effects every 2 levels or so. The pre-requisites could stay roughly the same. As would "base class" multiclassing. And, you wouldn't have to "start" at 10th level, just whenever you got the pre-requisites.
Really, the conversion would be simple (except some classes would have to be depowered and others up-powered). You just gain the "special" benefits as written in the prestige class, but you advance in your base class.
Also, I don't know if it's been brought up, but I don't like the way multiclassing affects saving throws. I suppose it's OK for base classes, but if Paizo sticks with the basic concept of prestige classes, at a minimum I REALLY would like to see some adjustments to the Save progressions. You shouldn't get a +2 at 1st level of a prestige class to any particular saving throw.
Contributor
|
I'd personally love to see Eldritch Knight get a bit of a tune-up, if only to modify the entry requirements. As-is, you have to be a 5th-level wizard/1st-level fighter to get into what is essentially a martial class. I'd love to see it tweaked so you had to be Fighter 2/Wizard 2 (or Fighter 2/Sorceror 3) to get in. Asside from that, I'm love to see some kind of benefit from a fighter loosing her ability to wear armor, like maybe a duration bonus to personal-range Abjuration spells.
Asside from that, I'm hoping to just see what Paizo does to inject a little more flavor into all the classes. I trust them 90% of the time :)
|
|
I like the idea of feat progressions, and it might be possible in Pathfinder with the additional feats. But, what I'd LOVE to see is for prestige classes go the way of Paragon and Epic paths in 4E and become "addons" to existing classes.
All it would take is some re-working of them to make it so they have specific effects every 2 levels or so. The pre-requisites could stay roughly the same. As would "base class" multiclassing. And, you wouldn't have to "start" at 10th level, just whenever you got the pre-requisites.
Really, the conversion would be simple (except some classes would have to be depowered and others up-powered). You just gain the "special" benefits as written in the prestige class, but you advance in your base class.
Also, I don't know if it's been brought up, but I don't like the way multiclassing affects saving throws. I suppose it's OK for base classes, but if Paizo sticks with the basic concept of prestige classes, at a minimum I REALLY would like to see some adjustments to the Save progressions. You shouldn't get a +2 at 1st level of a prestige class to any particular saving throw.
I thought the same thing, but there's no way Pathfinder will do it because they are trying to maintain backwards compatability.
Some are necessary patches for multiclass combos that don't work well (eldritch knight, mystic theurge).Currently, I'm working on turning about 90% of the 3.5 prestige classes (and many of the "new" base classes) into feats/feat chains for core classes. Those ones you mentioned (EldKt, MystTheur, etc.) would remain out of necessity, but the Hexblade, Bladesinger, Spellsword, Arcane Archer, etc. are all much simpler as Ftr/Wiz (or Sor)/EldKt with appropriate feat selections.
Likewise, the unique class features for the Samurai, Cavalier, etc. can become feats, and those whole classes turned back into fighters.
This is an interesting idea. As written these classes are pretty weak. Being able to just skim the appropriate class features and make a combination that does much of what these PrCs do without the shackles would be cool.
For example being a shadow dancer without the shadows.
I'd personally love to see Eldritch Knight get a bit of a tune-up, if only to modify the entry requirements. As-is, you have to be a 5th-level wizard/1st-level fighter to get into what is essentially a martial class. I'd love to see it tweaked so you had to be Fighter 2/Wizard 2 (or Fighter 2/Sorceror 3) to get in.
This would strongly limit it to Fighters (instead of any other class (or even race) that grants Martial Weapon Proficiency), but you could make Bravery (Fighter 2 class feature) a prereq.
Or perhaps something as simple as Base Fortitude +4/5.
As is Eldritch Knights get a HD bump from d6 to d10, pretty strong.
I'm sure there would be shouts against it, but perhaps only requiring 2nd level spells to enter, with 3/4 Attack bonus (and d8 hp) would work better.
For the record, by the prereq's as they are this is 'essentially' a caster class. Give up 2 levels of casting for full attack bonus and better hp.
|
|
This is an interesting idea. As written these classes are pretty weak. Being able to just skim the appropriate class features and make a combination that does much of what these PrCs do without the shackles would be cool.
For example being a shadow dancer without the shadows.
All of these proposals make sense from a game mechanic perspective.
From the roleplaying point of view this removes of the uniqueness associated with PrC: Yes, players are aware that some of their PrC choices are suboptimal from a rule perspective. But add the game world, the social impacts of a PrC choice, and you have considerably more components than you could put into any rulewise comparision of relative "PrC power".Some of the appeal of PrC is that players see an inspiring illustration, a class description and role playing advice for each PrC - same as base classes. If PrC were really reduced to pure feat chains, you'd have every power players dream come true - and confused beginning players trying to grasp what the impacts (both rules and rp wise) of each choice are...
Cheers,
Günther
This would strongly limit it to Fighters (instead of any other class (or even race) that grants Martial Weapon Proficiency), but you could make Bravery (Fighter 2 class feature) a prereq.
How about ability to use martial weapons, BAB +4 and second level spell casting? Then you could enter as a Fighter 3/Wizard 3, or a Fighter 2/Sorcerer 4, or a Fighter 1/Wizard 6, or various other combinations.
If PrC were really reduced to pure feat chains, you'd have every power players dream come true - and confused beginning players trying to grasp what the impacts (both rules and rp wise) of each choice are...
Yes, that's certainly a risk. I've been blessed so far to play with people who just enjoy playing the game; they don't hunt through hundreds of feats and PrCs looking for the "perfect" game-breaking character. But what I do encounter is someone who says, "I want to be the best rider in the world!" I direct them to the Cavalier PrC. Later, they meet a Halfling Outrider at some point, and think it's cool to, say, be able to stand on the mount's back -- hardly game-breaking, but visually nifty. I have to tell them, well, if you do that, then you can't get any more of the cavalier tricks. And besides, only halflings can do that, for no apparent reason. "Why can't a great rider learn great riding tricks?" Me: Well, because it's against the rules. Too bad!
I also despise the fact that the samurai is just a sub-standard fighter. Making it a fighter build just seems logical to me. I become annoyed that, to make a character you envision, you sometimes end up taking 16 classes that are all basically just "fighter."
Many PrCs would remain such: the eldritch knight, the assassin, and anything with campaign significance -- Red Wizard of Thay or whatever, for example. Also, anything with really unique abilities -- psion uncarnate, for example, or the intiate of the seven veils. But PrCs with features that are so feat-like as to be indistinguishable from feats (e.g., exotic weapon master) would be superceded by feats.
rules are guidelines meant to be bent or broken :) the DMG is not a bible that if you break a rule a pit fiend wont appear and take you to the nine hells.
Which I why I'm feeling free to convert many of the "fighter" prestige class features into combat feats. And when I'm done with that, I may start turning a lot of the Comple Adventurer/Scoundrel prestige class features (nightsong enforcer, etc.) into rogue talents.
--
Some prestige classes are well-crafted: I'd have a hard time reproducing a Dread Pirate with just core classes and feats. On the other hand, a lot of the other ones (e.g., Reaping Mauler) are just specialized fighters. Why not reflect that specialization using feats? Especially since so many of them have duplicated class fatures (Cf. Order of the Bow Initiate's close combat shot, the Exotic Weapon Master's close quarters ranged shot, and the Master Thrower's defensive toss). When 3+ prestige classes share a feature that looks like a feat to begin with, to my mind that means it's time to think about making that feature a feat.
How about ability to use martial weapons, BAB +4 and second level spell casting? Then you could enter as a Fighter 3/Wizard 3, or a Fighter 2/Sorcerer 4, or a Fighter 1/Wizard 6, or various other combinations.
Hogarth, this is brilliant!
The whole point of the prereq's are to prevent too easy admission (i.e. too little sacrifice for the added versatility). This makes it adjustable, but the sacrifice is pretty much the same.
The only "sneaky" way in I can see is Fighter 1/Bard 4 - and that has plenty of sacrifices of its own, and is only one level sooner.
Brilliant, truly!
|
|
"Why can't a great rider learn great riding tricks?" Me: Well, because it's against the rules. Too bad!
you forgot the golden rule that not enough 3.5e DMs know about or use.
rules are guidelines meant to be bent or broken :) the DMG is not a bible that if you break a rule a pit fiend wont appear and take you to the nine hells.
@ Wrathgon + Kirth: I think we agree pretty much. There are PrC and there are PrC. Most setting based PrC pretty much make sense. Most of the PrC in WotC's "Complete ..." series were always more inspiration or NPC PrC for my group than actually appealing to players.
It's not wrong to have these PrC around, but if any player asked whether he could learn a specific feature of a different PrC: why not "salvage" the feat from that PrC?
For the very same reason I welcome Paizo's decision to offer PrC for setting specific roles only. Anything else rather feels like a template for N/PCs (which has its own merits, but is something completely different). I would never want to dispense with PrC which address specific roles in a setting, though.
Kr,
Günther
Guennarr has it exactly right, as far as I'm concerned.
Excellent post.
|
Guennarr has it exactly right, as far as I'm concerned.
Excellent post.
Count me in on this one too - in my home games, if a player comes to me with a request to make a wizard who knows how to cast spells in light armor, I say "sure, you can give up your familiar for that".
I mean, I own as many splatbooks as possible in 3.5, but I use them as templates to generate ideas as much as I do for actual application.
Jal, your approach is nearly identical to mine.
But even for people who view the rules as rules, not as guidelines: look at the Exotic Weapon Master. It's a generic (non-cultural/setting-specific) class that gives d10 HD, Full BAB, 2 skill points/level, and what amount to weapon bonus feats. Sound familiar? YES! It's a fighter! Simply applying the PrC prereqs to the individual feats results in the elimination of an entire "class" with no other overt difference in the game.
|
|
Jal, your approach is nearly identical to mine.
But even for people who view the rules as rules, not as guidelines: look at the Exotic Weapon Master. It's a generic (non-cultural/setting-specific) class that gives d10 HD, Full BAB, 2 skill points/level, and what amount to weapon bonus feats. Sound familiar? YES! It's a fighter! Simply applying the PrC prereqs to the individual feats results in the elimination of an entire "class" with no other overt difference in the game.
Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.
Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.
Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
|
|
Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
you played one? i've never been over 18th!
|
|
you played one? i've never been over 18th!Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
n00b. ;)
you played one? i've never been over 18th!Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
I've only once had a character that didn't go epic. He died at level 15. Happens to be my all-time favorite character. Dwarf Cleric/Fighter
I've only once had a character that didn't go epic. He died at level 15. Happens to be my all-time favorite character. Dwarf Cleric/Fighter
Best sort of dwarf there is! A dead one!
Best sort of dwarf there is! A dead one!
I've only once had a character that didn't go epic. He died at level 15. Happens to be my all-time favorite character. Dwarf Cleric/Fighter
Aww, hey now!
Or so i thought... about a week later in game (with a new character, btw) the dragon came back with a scar on her neck, and a template.. imagine how happy i was..
Edit: spoilered to minimize threadjacking
<some other stuff>
Also, I don't know if it's been brought up, but I don't like the way multiclassing affects saving throws. I suppose it's OK for base classes, but if Paizo sticks with the basic concept of prestige classes, at a minimum I REALLY would like to see some adjustments to the Save progressions. You shouldn't get a +2 at 1st level of a prestige class to any particular saving throw.
What I would like to see is one of the options from Unearthed Arcana, with one change. In that book (which is OGL), on p. 73, there is a system for dealing with BAB and base saves as fractional bonuses.
With this system, when one multiclasses, your character does not get completely shafted with respect to BAB. This helps non-martial multiclasses most.
There is still room for abuse with base saves, but with one simple change (a character only gets the "+2" bonus _once_ for each save type in his career) one can create a more balanced character. No more multiclass Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian with an insane Fortitude save, but a pathetic Will (and mostly pathetic Reflex) save!
Just my 2 cp worth.
|
Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
I've always lost interest about 15th or 16th level. I tend to prefer lower level games because I like the wonder of it.
|
|
n00b. ;)you played one? i've never been over 18th!Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
hey, they didn't have "epic" in 1E! salar mynaught was 25th level when he "retired", but he's old school, none of these new fangled "epic" shennanigans!
and get off my lawn, you whippersnappers!
and get off my lawn, you whippersnappers!
They must be grognards... because everyone knows those things on the lawn are garden gnomes, and we all know gnomes aren't a PC race in 4e.
|
|
I've always lost interest about 15th or 16th level. I tend to prefer lower level games because I like the wonder of it.Yup. The only thing it affects is qualifying for epic levels in a particular class. Really, if giving a fighter the Exotic Weapon Master "kit" means they are better at epic levels than if it were a PrC, I am not bothered by it.Hadn't even though of that -- of course, in ~30 years of playing, I've had a total of one (1) epic-level character.
Fighting demi-gods and archfiends isn't wondrous? ;)
I agree with you - 1st-5th level is my zone.
I guess I was thinking that my ideas are not all that non-backwards compatible. I'm not saying Paizo will do it, but I would LOVE to see them convert the DMG prestige classes and a bunch of their own prestige classes (and provide a guide how to do it for any prestige class) to either feat chains or "Prestige Paths", where characters continue to advance per their original class (or one of their original classes) and just add the Prestige Path abilities on top of it.
Or, at the minimum, just declare that Prestige Class Save advancements are notched up one level, so characters miss the +2. This isn't that different than having to modify the pre-requisites because of the skill change. Not EVERYTHING in Pathfinder is backwards compatible.
Eldritch Knight, balanced or not, is at least in the category of "nice fixes". Mystic Theurge is broken, but similarly fixes up Cleric/Wizard characters.
Why do you consider the Mystic Theurge broken? Do you think it's too powerful (unlikely) or too weak?
Why do you consider the Mystic Theurge broken? Do you think it's too powerful (unlikely) or too weak?I think it's too powerful. In 3.5, I traded very little to get quite a lot. I could be a Wizard 3, Cleric 3, take 10 levels in MT and have
the spell capacity of a 13th lvl in each?[...]
Anyway, it's double-dipping. That's pretty powerful. I don't see how anyone can think that's weak, although apparently people think that. Why do people think that's weak?
Mystic Theurge allows you to exchange the ability to cast high-level spells for the ability to cast lots of low-level spells. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience I'd rather have two or three good level [N] spells than twice as many level [N-2] spells.
I agree that once you already have level 9 spells, there's no harm in branching out to another class, though.
I think it's too powerful. In 3.5, I traded very little to get quite a lot. I could be a Wizard 3, Cleric 3, take 10 levels in MT and have the spell capacity of a 13th lvl in each?
Which is fine at 16th level. But at 6th, you're a Wiz 3/Clr 3, which is essentially the same as having two henchmen a level behind par for a cohort each, with only one action between them, and if one dies, so does the other. You are an absolute liability to the party; until you get enough Mystic Theurge levels under yout belt, you singlehandedly do more to kill all your companions than all the monsters put together. If that's how you like to play (contributing nothing to the group but claiming an equal share of all the rewards that others earned on your behalf), and if the other players tolerate being babysitters instead of adventurers for 6 or so levels, OK -- but even after that, you're always 3 levels behind on good spells.
|
|
I'm currently anti-PrC, as I see plenty of ways to leverage the flexibility of 3P to do these things without having to make non-core classes. To me, this is a good thing.
One area I still find them compelling for is as a "fix" for multi-classing. As it stands right now, a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is so sub-optimal that even a player who values RP value over pure optimization is going to be bummed that his character is so overshadowed by the Fighter 20 and Wizard 20. That is the build that is the most broken, and it still saddens me -- having played many a Fighter/Wizard in my youth, that's an iconic build I still love (Melf is my hero!).
Eldritch Knight, balanced or not, is at least in the category of "nice fixes". Mystic Theurge is broken, but similarly fixes up Cleric/Wizard characters. Most other multi-class characters don't seem to suffer as much, but there's still the slight "offness" there.
This is a long-winded way of saying "I'd like to see a nicely balanced Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge". Oh, and Assassin is nice too -- although I'd prefer that be retro-fitted as a directed rogue talent tree.
Well, other than the debateable comments about Mystic Theurge -- which have been addressed by Hogarth -- what do you mean by referring to PrCs as 'non-core'? They're in the SRD so from the PFRPG OGL-single-book-game-compatible-with-SRD perspective they are core in the sense that they should be in the standard game (although I understand what you mean in terms of them not being standard 20-level PhB classes and know that 'core' is used in that regard).
As for the concerns about Fighter/Wizard, isn't that in large part a problem relating to the overpoweredness of Wizards at high levels (in that the overshadowing is significantly more by the Wizard 20 than by the Fighter 20)? Anyhow, Eldritch Knight doesn't seem particularly unbalanced (compared to Wizard, say), but I haven't played one to high levels (so I'm just thinking out loud).
Well, we probably need a close variant on the existing Mystic Theurge for purposes of backwards compatibility.
But, had I a perfectly clean sheet of paper, I wouldn't have a dual-casting-class progression. I'd have done a single progression in two flavors:
The Arcane Theurge:
Must be able to cast 2nd-level arcane spells (no divine spells requirement), Knowledge (Religion) or (Nature) 6 ranks. Basic class progression (hp, BAB, saves) as a wizard, +1 level of arcane spellcasting progression/level, no gain of arcane class features. At each level, 1-10, add a level of cleric or druid spells (player's choice of class at 1st level of Arcane Theurge, no mixing, must match Cleric/Knowledge (Religion) or Druid/Knowledge(Nature) as appropriate) to the character's original arcane class's spell list (addling levels 0-9 in order). Epic progression identical to the wizard.
The Divine Thaumaturge:
Must be able to cast 2nd-level divine spells (no arcane spells requirement), Knowledge (Arcana) 3 ranks. Basic class progression as a cleric, +1 level of divine spellcasting progression/level, no gain of divine class features. At each level, 1-10, add a level of sor/wiz spells to the character's original divine class's spell list (addling levels 0-9 in order). Epic progression identical to the cleric. Arcane spells added to the cleric or druid list would retain the arcane spell failure chance in armor.