I personally see why Jason took the PrC out and all, but the abilities in the PrC have become iconic and are not included in the standard wizard class. Abilities like sculpting and changing a spell's energy type, just for starters.
So ether please ether do a major re-work on the Wizard class to automatically include these abilities as an option, or please bring back the PrC.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree and would also ask that Heirophant be kept as well. Or atleast convert the abilities to feats that can be taken by high level casters.I personally see why Jason took the PrC out and all, but the abilities in the PrC have become iconic and are not included in the standard wizard class. Abilities like sculpting and changing a spell's energy type, just for starters.
So ether please ether do a major re-work on the Wizard class to automatically include these abilities as an option, or please bring back the PrC.
Why not let them be capstones for wizards/sorcerers?
Let the Wizard take a high arcana at 14, 16, 18, 20th level and the sorcerer takes them at 13, 15, 17, 19. That gives them more of an incentive tostay in the class (and pays the sorcerer back with interest for delayed spells).
They forgot the only two core PRCs that were actually worth a crap in addition to messing up the others it seems. More disappointment.
I don't think they're needed.Now I can call any high level wizard or druid an Archmage or Heirophant without rules-based confusion. 'Sa good thing in my opinion.
(Of course, none of my players ever took those PRCs so it's really no big loss to me that they're gone.)
|
|
Why not let them be capstones for wizards/sorcerers?Let the Wizard take a high arcana at 14, 16, 18, 20th level and the sorcerer takes them at 13, 15, 17, 19. That gives them more of an incentive tostay in the class (and pays the sorcerer back with interest for delayed spells).
Doesn't this empower the casters further? Also, do wizards really need additional incentive to stay in the class?
It is possible that they weren't included in the Pathfinder update because they didn't need an update. In which case it would still be warranted to mention them, but a waste of space to put them in there unchanged except for class skills (which you can really do yourself anyway).
|
I don't think they're needed.Now I can call any high level wizard or druid an Archmage or Heirophant without rules-based confusion. 'Sa good thing in my opinion.
(Of course, none of my players ever took those PRCs so it's really no big loss to me that they're gone.)
I agree. Though i loved and used the PrCs a lot, i think it's good to make the base classes better so they're not needed. Especially since some of the lost class features from the PrCs may come back as feats later on in PfRPG.
It is possible that they weren't included in the Pathfinder update because they didn't need an update. In which case it would still be warranted to mention them, but a waste of space to put them in there unchanged except for class skills (which you can really do yourself anyway).
That is not true, they have stated other wise. Please read the announcement for the release Jason posted. These PrCs were dropped because they thought that they were not necessary, while a lot of us think that they are if only for the iconic abilities in one form or another.
Yep.. I miss my Archmage :( Not for the title- as that's more or less an RP thing.. but for some of the abilities you can't easily reproduce.
-S
I also miss these prestige classes but the Feats chains wouldnt be a bad idea either
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Doesn't this empower the casters further? Also, do wizards really need additional incentive to stay in the class?
Why not let them be capstones for wizards/sorcerers?Let the Wizard take a high arcana at 14, 16, 18, 20th level and the sorcerer takes them at 13, 15, 17, 19. That gives them more of an incentive tostay in the class (and pays the sorcerer back with interest for delayed spells).
I don't think so,
Except for the Skill Focus: Spellcraft feat, the prerequsite feats were good enough to take for their own inherent bonuses. The Archmage class didn't lose any caster levels, or will saves, or spells known. You just lost 5 levels of your familiar. By making them class features you essentially save one feat (good for the sorcerer). In fact, I considered the trade off good enough that I was willing to sacrifice 5d8 hp for 5d4, and a average BAB over 5 levels (and my 3rd attack) to get the Archmage for my battle sorcerer, who was feat starved as is.
Optionally, making High Arcana feats requiring "arcane caster level X" would work just as well, since Pathfinder has more feats than 3.5. I just like the idea of the sorcerer getting access to them first.
Doesn't this empower the casters further? Also, do wizards really need additional incentive to stay in the class?
Why not let them be capstones for wizards/sorcerers?Let the Wizard take a high arcana at 14, 16, 18, 20th level and the sorcerer takes them at 13, 15, 17, 19. That gives them more of an incentive tostay in the class (and pays the sorcerer back with interest for delayed spells).
I don't think so,
Except for the Skill Focus: Spellcraft feat, the prerequsite feats were good enough to take for their own inherent bonuses. The Archmage class didn't lose any caster levels, or will saves, or spells known. You just lost 5 levels of your familiar. By making them class features you essentially save one feat (good for the sorcerer). In fact, I considered the trade off good enough that I was willing to sacrifice 5d8 hp for 5d4, and a average BAB over 5 levels (and my 3rd attack) to get the Archmage for my battle sorcerer, who was feat starved as is.
Optionally, making High Arcana feats requiring "arcane caster level X" would work just as well, since Pathfinder has more feats than 3.5. I just like the idea of the sorcerer getting access to them first.
I particually don't due to flavor of the orriginal, but this is up to Jason. The Archmagi was supposed to be the wizard that normally studies magic, but studies it to a level of absurdity at witch they can control it more like their own body. Sorcerer don't study so I don't think they should get any sort of access IMHO.
feats work much better then the PRC IMHO
Yeah, I also think that feats are the way to go here.
Archmage, High Priest, Hierophant.... those are titles for powerful wizards, clerics, druids, not specialisations. I'd say thatonce you're level 15 or something like that, you can go ahead and call yourself archmage.
And those wizards shouldn't have to decide between their school powers and stuff that should be generally available to those of their power level. Plus, there are not that many feats especially for high-level casters. Quicken spell maybe, but that's it.
If that wizard wants to specialise in the sevenfold power of prismatic spells, or manipulate fate, or summon unspeakable horrors from beyond time and space - that warrants a PrC.
I think that feats will work fine in this instance. After all, both the Archmage and Hierophant had to flush feats (and spell-slots) away to gain most of the abilities before, so this (if in moderation) will be a good idea.
I also miss these prestige classes but the Feats chains wouldnt be a bad idea either
Disagree. This was a PrC usually for a wizard, but generally a caster, that has put such extreme level of research into spells in such a variety that the spells start to act more like limbs and extensions of their body. I don't think this can be covered as a feat as it is too powerful
I'm dense.
How is the Archmage gone? Are they redoing the DMG, too?
The PFRpg will have both PHB and DMG info in it/ As new players need all that info
The PFRpg will have both PHB and DMG info in it/ As new players need all that info
Has the Beta been updated to reflect this? Why are people thinking these classes are gone?
Also as it came from the 3.0 FRCS and not the DMG its a transplant just like the red wizard. Well including the Heirophant that was 3 classes from a campaign setting moved to the DMG
I would move there ability to high level feats.
The classes was just released a few days back, there are 2 threads over it. And yes they were cut out .
link is here
And of course, if backwards compatibility is maintained, you can always use the 3.5 version of the classes if you want to.
And for what its worth, I kind of liked SKR's version of the Archmage that didn't give a spellcaster progression but worked like the Heirophant.
Actually... the reason the archmage and the hierophant are gone is because in the PF RPG, spellcasting classes get high-level powers and abilities, unlike the 3.5 version which is only spells, really. The hope is that the role of "archmage" or "hierophant" will instead be handled simply by high level wizards or sorcerers or clerics or druids.Big K would become a 20th-level transmuter in the PF RPG version, in other words.
And we'd get to use the words hierophant and archmage again without being limited to characters who have levels in those classes. Which is nice.
YES, they are gone. It would be different if they said no changes were necessary, but they instead said they were gone.
A re-posting of them with a D6 hit die too much to ask?
The 3.5 Archmage Prestige Class had the following ‘official’ requirements:
Knowledge (arcane) 15 Ranks
Spellcraft 15 Ranks
Skill Focus (Spellcraft)
Spell Focus in two schools of magic
Ability to cast 7th-level arcane schools
Knowledge of 5th-level or higher spells from at least 5 schools With the possible exceptions of Skill Focus (Spellcraft) a reasonably combat effective wizard in 3.5 would meet all of those requirements by the time that he/she could take the first level of Archmage at 14th level (or sooner if tricky things with certain other prestige classes were done).
Given that the only ‘requirement’ in 3.5 for taking Archmage that involved doing something maybe beyond the usual was the taking the Skill Focus (Spellcraft) feat, I would have no problem with putting 3.5 ‘Archmage’ abilities in a feat chain for wizards of suitable breadth and depth of knowledge (i.e. ability to cast 7th level arcane spells, 5th level or higher from 5 or more schools) based off the Skill Focus (Spellcraft) feat; in fact replacing other prestige classes with feat chains based off of various Skill Focus (xxx) feats might be interesting, too. PCs seem likely to have access to more feats in PF RPG, after all.
If doing so I think you would be faced with two problems.
1. There would be too many feats you would have to get to obtain the same effect, and not enough feats to take them all like you would be able to normally.
or.
2. You would be faced with a set of overwhelmingly over powered feats, that would not be to par with any others.
Well give up x slot would fit in with many of the archmage ability
I am not convinced that this class should not be PrC. Feats are still too limited, except if your a fighter, to make it worth while.
I also miss these prestige classes but the Feats chains wouldnt be a bad idea eitherDisagree. This was a PrC usually for a wizard, but generally a caster, that has put such extreme level of research into spells in such a variety that the spells start to act more like limbs and extensions of their body. I don't think this can be covered as a feat as it is too powerful
There is nothing that prevents a sorcerer from taking this class. It is not "a PrC for wizards".
There is nothing that prevents a sorcerer from taking this class. It is not "a PrC for wizards".I also miss these prestige classes but the Feats chains wouldnt be a bad idea eitherDisagree. This was a PrC usually for a wizard, but generally a caster, that has put such extreme level of research into spells in such a variety that the spells start to act more like limbs and extensions of their body. I don't think this can be covered as a feat as it is too powerful
True.
Creative Director
|
Although chances of bringing back the archmage for the Beta are pretty slim... nothing is set in stone yet. That said, there's more to the archmage and hierophant being gone than the fact that we feel that their roles aren't needed as much because high level spellcasters are already pretty strong... there's also the issue of space. The Pathfinder RPG is a pretty massive book as it is, and when it comes to prestige classes... we just don't have enough room to include ALL of the SRD prestige clases. A few had to be cut, and the ones we cut were the ones we felt the game could do without.
The same thing will be happening in the monster book; we won't be able to fit all of the SRD monsters into the Pathfinder Bestiary, I'm afraid.
But like the Pathfinder Bestiary... these books won't be the last we'll ever say about the topic. I'm certain that we'll eventually release a book that has additional prestige classes, and that could be a good place to include the ones we're leaving out.
And then again... the game's gonna be backwards computable enough, I hope, that you CAN still use these classes if you want.
And again, it's unlikely, but if concern for the missing prestige classes continues to grow, we might still reverse our opinions and bring them back. (Even though at this point that'd probably mean cutting several pages of content from elsewhere in the book.)
Although chances of bringing back the archmage for the Beta are pretty slim... nothing is set in stone yet. That said, there's more to the archmage and hierophant being gone than the fact that we feel that their roles aren't needed as much because high level spellcasters are already pretty strong... there's also the issue of space. The Pathfinder RPG is a pretty massive book as it is, and when it comes to prestige classes... we just don't have enough room to include ALL of the SRD prestige clases. A few had to be cut, and the ones we cut were the ones we felt the game could do without.
The same thing will be happening in the monster book; we won't be able to fit all of the SRD monsters into the Pathfinder Bestiary, I'm afraid.
But like the Pathfinder Bestiary... these books won't be the last we'll ever say about the topic. I'm certain that we'll eventually release a book that has additional prestige classes, and that could be a good place to include the ones we're leaving out.
And then again... the game's gonna be backwards computable enough, I hope, that you CAN still use these classes if you want.
And again, it's unlikely, but if concern for the missing prestige classes continues to grow, we might still reverse our opinions and bring them back. (Even though at this point that'd probably mean cutting several pages of content from elsewhere in the book.)
Thanks for the clarification. Saying that they are cut, and saying they are cut from the book are two very different things and I can see why you would not want to include it for those reasons. So if your not banning these classes, and the simple change of making the hit die a D6 sound great.
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah; giving the archmage d6 HD and altering its saves as appropriate is really all you'd need to do to make it PF RPG compliant.
I suspect that (if not in the final PF RPG then perhaps in a conversion book) it'd be a good idea to outline how to adjust 3.5 prestige classes from other sources in the same way. There'd be no need to change much more than HD in a few cases (d4s become d6s) and the saving throw thing, I'd suspect (with some skill prerequesites changing slightly too, I guess). The actual powers though should port over pretty well for the most part.
Also as it came from the 3.0 FRCS and not the DMG its a transplant just like the red wizard.
Not really: The Red Wizard was a real Realms specific class, with ties to the game. Hierophant and Archmage were very generic PrCs. They're not only portable to other game worlds, they're perfectly at home in any world where spellcasters can get to level 20 and beyond.
Disagree. This was a PrC usually for a wizard, but generally a caster, that has put such extreme level of research into spells in such a variety that the spells start to act more like limbs and extensions of their body. I don't think this can be covered as a feat as it is too powerful
I don't see anything here that won't apply to any high-level spellcaster. It's not as if the PrC had prerequisites that screamed "serious deviation from the general spellcaster path". Or that the class made you give up that much.
I think that at the highest levels, wizards will have most of the feats they want, anyway: Beyond scribe scroll, you get 6 regular feats and 2 wizard bonus feats up until level 12. That's enough for spell penetration, greater sp, spell focus and greater for your favourite school, and 4 meta magic feats (extend, empower, maximise, quicken). After that, it often gets boring.
Enter the High Magic feats, which will offer you new options for the rest of the way (4 more regular feats and 2 more bonus feats).
|
|
I suspect that (if not in the final PF RPG then perhaps in a conversion book) it'd be a good idea to outline how to adjust 3.5 prestige classes from other sources in the same way. There'd be no need to change much more than HD in a few cases (d4s become d6s) and the saving throw thing, I'd suspect (with some skill prerequesites changing slightly too, I guess). The actual powers though should port over pretty well for the most part.
The above, more than anything else, should be in the Pathfinder RPG and any future PRPG supps. Hopefully it should silent naysayers and subtlety point out that Dungeon & Dragons 3.x, as a game system in and of itself, is no longer actively supported by its publisher.
|
Creative Director
|
I suspect that (if not in the final PF RPG then perhaps in a conversion book) it'd be a good idea to outline how to adjust 3.5 prestige classes from other sources in the same way. There'd be no need to change much more than HD in a few cases (d4s become d6s) and the saving throw thing, I'd suspect (with some skill prerequesites changing slightly too, I guess). The actual powers though should port over pretty well for the most part.The above, more than anything else, should be in the Pathfinder RPG and any future PRPG supps. Hopefully it should silent naysayers and subtlety point out that Dungeon & Dragons 3.x, as a game system in and of itself, is no longer actively supported by its publisher.
Of course... not everything that the "previous publisher" produced is something that I think should have a place in Golarion or the Pathfinder RPG. I'd rather contain conversion notes in some sort of relatively small (hopefully free) conversion booklet/PDF and let each GM decide what goes in and what does not. We'll certainly be using a "Compatible with the 3.5 version of the world's most popular RPG" or some such thing on all PF RPG products, but beyond that, actually including a block of text that gives tips on converting older product in every new product we produce isn't really a wise use of space, I think.
|
|
I'd rather contain conversion notes in some sort of relatively small (hopefully free) conversion booklet/PDF and let each GM decide what goes in and what does not.
If Paizo does that, we'll spread the news on-line faster than the latest Britney Spears lack-of-panties' photo*. :)
*Such images will, instead, be directed to F. Wesley Schneider's blog. She's not exactly a virgin sacrifice, but qualifies -- barely -- as nubile despite the plastic enhancements.
Shadowdancer is what's known as 'getting HiPS at level 8 if you waste two out of four feats on your Rogue along with 10 skill points'. Other than that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
|
|
Shadowdancer is what's known as 'getting HiPS at level 8 if you waste two out of four feats on your Rogue along with 10 skill points'. Other than that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
You know, I've always wanted to try a shadowdancer - until I look at the mechanics once again and say "Nah, you know what? That's the equivalent of digging out my own eye with a spoon."
I would love to make shadowdancer interesting without being a waste of levels. It'd be especially fun to take the dancer portion of the class and make it some fun sort of Bard / Rogue combo prestige class. That could be interesting. I'll ruminate on that for a bit. :)
The bard idea shows promise. Maybe take the visual parts of bardic performance and grant them to shadowdancers, or invent new ones, some with a bit more (pseudo-)substance that draw upon shadow magic.
Other than that, it's true: I never thought that shadowdancers were good for anything.
I particually don't due to flavor of the orriginal, but this is up to Jason. The Archmagi was supposed to be the wizard that normally studies magic, but studies it to a level of absurdity at witch they can control it more like their own body. Sorcerer don't study so I don't think they should get any sort of access IMHO.
As opposed to simply controlling magic as an extension of your body, mind and soul, like say a sorcerer does? Sorcerers don't use magic, sorcerers are magic. Being the thing itself seems to me they would have better control over what they do with it.
But hey I'm just a crazy sorc with high CHA and no INT so what do I know?
[/self depressination]
depressination
That's not a word you dumb pansy boomstick ;-P
I agree with pretty boy here. Archmage isn't just for wizards, it's for sorcerers, too. And if it isn't, they should get something, too: If archmages are wizards who studied magic absolutely, there should be way for sorcerers to become magic absolutely. Call it Arcanate or something.
Or just leave one option open for both.
depressinationThat's not a word you dumb pansy boomstick ;-P
I agree with pretty boy here. Archmage isn't just for wizards, it's for sorcerers, too. And if it isn't, they should get something, too: If archmages are wizards who studied magic absolutely, there should be way for sorcerers to become magic absolutely. Call it Arcanate or something.
Or just leave one option open for both.
*Sits there looking pretty*
Doesn't matter I'm pretty so people will like me!
Other than that what the smart man said!
depressinationThat's not a word you dumb pansy boomstick ;-P
I agree with pretty boy here. Archmage isn't just for wizards, it's for sorcerers, too. And if it isn't, they should get something, too: If archmages are wizards who studied magic absolutely, there should be way for sorcerers to become magic absolutely. Call it Arcanate or something.
Or just leave one option open for both.
Never said it was just for wizards, if I did at any point, I corrected my self.