One of the things I've noticed since starting a campaign using the Pathfinder beta rules and now continuing into the final rules is the lack of enthusiasm over Prestige Classes.
I have a couple of theories over this and was curious what everyone else thought.
One theory is that, due to the remake of all the core classes, Prestige Classes lost their bite. I almost see Prestige Class abilities pretty much on par with base class abilities. Whether upping the ante with the core classes was intended to balance prestige vs core, I don't know.
Another theory is that the designers are more inclined to encourage people to stick with one core class for the sake of playability rather than dipping into X number of other classes to get what they want. Overall, it's basically saying "What do you need to go to a Prestige Class for when you're base class is still very cool?"
So, all in all, I see many people interested in new base classes, not so much in new Prestige Classes. If they are interested in Prestige Classes, it's for the sake of roleplaying rather than cool abilities.
Thoughts?
Something along the lines of "all is well again?"
I like it. While some PrCs really are too weak to stand up against normal classes, I think a lot of the old enthusiasm for PrCs was because there were so many classes that did absolutely nothing to encourage you to stay in the class.
Play a fighter, cleric, wizard, sorcerer? Go play a PrC! The few abilities (beyond 4th level or so) those classes do have that cannot be emulated by PrCs with a simple "+1 spellcaster level" or just simply a good BAB are not only not on par with PrC abilities, they're just plain boring and weak.
But in PF, base classes now are a real alternative!
I think the natural evolution for that (i.e. how things will be in PF 2.0) will be the death of PrCs in favour of lists of thematically linked feats or class abilities. (Want to play Weapon Master? Well, that's a fighter with weapon mastery feats! Want to play the Primal Rager? Just a bunch of mid-to-high-level barbarian rage powers)
|
I have to say that I feel very limited because of this. The PrCs are a Joke. The should be an opportunity to specialize in certain aspects, but they are in fact weaker as allready pointed out.
Paizo should strenghthen them. I am very dissapointed of PFRPG concerning changes made to classes.
A year of playtesting and then they present us dead classes like the bard and all prestige classes except for the DD.
If I don't see some changes in the future or erratas for existing books, I will stop playing PF and go back to 3.5.
That might explain what happened to the poor shadow dancer *shudder*
I have to agree, prestige classes have certainly found a place in my gaming heart over the years. While I agree with the point that the new classes are more viable in comparison, I don't agree with simply using class features to replace them. PrC's add a certain specific flavor that a tree of standard class features just don't.
Otherwise why don't we just have one class called "Hero001" and allow it to choose from all available features.
For my taste, I would request a revivification of PrCs.
|
Im fine with PRC being for those who crave specific flavor. not a jumping board for all out munchkinism. I personally would play any of the prestige classes in the Core rulebook ( the pathfinder chronicler is the only superweak one) but the important idea to state is that I dont HAVE to pick a prestige class to be good at high levels.
Creative Director
|
The general theory is that in 3.5, prestige classes sort of took the game over—they were everywhere and all over the place. We wanted to ramp this proliferation back a bit, and bring prestige classes back to something someone would take not necessarilly because they're looking to power game or maximize their character, but because they're looking for a more specific roleplaying edge for a character or for something actually different from what their core class gives them. By making the core classes attractive to 20th and removing "dead levels" we DO hope to see more single classed characters.
That all said, don't forget the most important rule: "It's your game." That, and the fact that it's still compatible with 3.5 means that all the older 3.5 prestige classes are still pretty much viable. You'll want to download the free conversion guide to find out how to make those older classes work with the new skill system (it's pretty easy) but beyond that, it should be ready to go.
|
|
I have to say that I feel very limited because of this. The PrCs are a Joke. The should be an opportunity to specialize in certain aspects, but they are in fact weaker as allready pointed out.
I don't understand.
Eldritch Knight - Gains +10 Bab, +10 spell casting levels, EK levels count as both arcane class and fighter class for access to feats. and an ending bonus of a swift action, non-aoo spell cast on a critical.
End game (level 20)
Caster Level: Minimum 15th, (10 from EK, +5 from prereq) assuming all spell levels went to one arcane class - so access to 7th level spells.
Max 19th if finish out levels as same caster type
BAB: Min - +15 (assuming uses 4 remaining level on low progression bab class. Max - +17
Saves: F1,W9,EK10 - 10, 6, 9
F5,W5,EK10 - 10, 5, 8
Feats: F1,W9,EK10 - 4 Combat (1F/3EK), Scribe Scroll + 1 W,
F5,W5,EK10 - 6 Combat (3F/3EK), Scribe Scroll + 1 W,
Armor Training 1, Weapon Training 1
Closest comparison - F10/W10
CL 10 (5th Level Spells), BAB 15, Saves 10,6,10
Feats: 6 Combat, Scribe Scroll, 2 Wiz Bonus
Armour and Weapon Training 2
How is that 'weaker' exactly? This looks the same with nigh every other PrC that I checked, I can post them if need be
Is it a better 'fighter' then a 20th level combat class? No. Is it a better 'caster' then a 20th level straight caster class? No. And those are the answer you should get. NO MIXED CLASS should out fight or out cast a straight class - that would be stupid.
PrCs that mix abilities across class roles are just about equal to doing it through multi-classing. It's just easier to manage for some players or allows access to otherwise inaccessible class features - which caused all the 'class-sniping' in early 3.0.
That was one of the reasons I shudder at the thought of a return to the Mongoose big book of broken prestige classes. Next folks will want a return of the shadow master that summoned shadows, that could make shadows, which in turn could make shadows.... I remember all the complaints when it got changed too.. how it wasn't fair that X PrC wasn't MORE powerful then Y Core Class.
Mixed classes have more roles they fit in, thus allow for more role-playing opportunities but that has costs in end game power. Its a balance, a delicate one that will never make all camps happy.
I like PrCs if they aren't too powerful. The options presented by them are beneficial to me
One of the things I've noticed since starting a campaign using the Pathfinder beta rules and now continuing into the final rules is the lack of enthusiasm over Prestige Classes.
I have a couple of theories over this and was curious what everyone else thought.
One theory is that, due to the remake of all the core classes, Prestige Classes lost their bite. I almost see Prestige Class abilities pretty much on par with base class abilities. Whether upping the ante with the core classes was intended to balance prestige vs core, I don't know.
Another theory is that the designers are more inclined to encourage people to stick with one core class for the sake of playability rather than dipping into X number of other classes to get what they want. Overall, it's basically saying "What do you need to go to a Prestige Class for when you're base class is still very cool?"
So, all in all, I see many people interested in new base classes, not so much in new Prestige Classes. If they are interested in Prestige Classes, it's for the sake of roleplaying rather than cool abilities.
Thoughts?
PrC's should never have really existed to begin with.
You can make up any PrC by simply designing a feat tree and adding the appropriate Pre-Reqs, a fact that seems lost on many people.
The only reason PrC's exist is to get a cool 'name tag' and for ROLE-PLAYING purposes. They should never have exceeded the powers of the base classes. That they did was a glaring example of what dead levels leave designers with time on their hands to do.
All a PrC is, and should be, is an alternative mode of advancement to a base class. You can do this by subbing out class abilities, OR by making them spend specific feats to get the abilities. The latter is far simpler.
===Aelryinth
|
|
Play such a class and you will notice the difference. In theory those mix-classes may look nice, but during play you will notice that your eldritch knight can not keep up with the other adventures.
Like I said, personaly I am more angry about crippling PrC which should strenghthen some aspect of a class, like the Duelist.
And yes, they are crippled compared to the improvements of the core classes.
And no, 3.5 and Pathfinder are not compatible since the power level of PF is way higher.
All a PrC is, and should be, is an alternative mode of advancement to a base class. You can do this by subbing out class abilities, OR by making them spend specific feats to get the abilities. The latter is far simpler.
I disagree with this, and agree far more with the original intent of Prestige Classes from way back in 3rd Edition (3.0). When the initial intent was for PrCs to be a DM controlled setting element to encourage Players to get their characters involved in the world. I was unfortunate that concept was dropped very early on in favor of using it a PC customization tool.
We (as a community and developers) know better now, and have better tools to accomplish minor tweaks to the Base Classes to open up variants that used to need covering by the PrCs.
I still think PrCs are an excellent tool that should be under the DMs control in the campaign. Organization specific PrCs are a good example.
I never really liked Prestige classes because I often never saw one that fit my characters or, when I did I already had a lot of their abilities any ways. For instance, the Invisible Blade, which was targeted at Rogues mainly, got the Improved Feint feat free a few levels into it. The trouble was that, when I made a Rogue that would fit into that concept, Improved Fient was the second feat on my list. I'm happy with the diversity PFRPG provides and making prestige classes less attractive.
I don't think they are completely useless though. Any class that allows you to capitalize on the abilities of multi-classing. EdK gets a good BAB and their spellcasting level goes up, somthing you don't get with just fighter or wizard. Some are even better, like Arcane Archer, which I'm pretty sure didn't get any bonus spell levels before.
If they do decide to make prestige classes more powerful, I do hope they make you stick with it until level 10 of the class. The cherry picking always bugged me.
I disagree with this, and agree far more with the original intent of Prestige Classes from way back in 3rd Edition (3.0). When the initial intent was for PrCs to be a DM controlled setting element to encourage Players to get their characters involved in the world. I was unfortunate that concept was dropped very early on in favor of using it a PC customization tool.We (as a community and developers) know better now, and have better tools to accomplish minor tweaks to the Base Classes to open up variants that used to need covering by the PrCs.
I still think PrCs are an excellent tool that should be under the DMs control in the campaign. Organization specific PrCs are a good example.
Well said. PrCs should add flavor and provide player options, not overpower standard classes, as many have pointed out.
I've read builds for characters that dipped into every splatbook class I'd ever heard of (and some I hadn't!), and if that kind of cherry-picking to create the uber-character floats your boat, that's fine. It's just not for me. It's min/maxing to the point of distraction. A straight-class character should be as fun as anything else you can whip up.
The PrCs that blend spellcasting with other classes seem to do it just fine, IMHO. Expanding your repertoire comes at the cost of focus, but makes for some interesting characters with some fun options, so it's all good.
I think I'll be happy with the core and PrC classes as written for some time to come. If there are really problems with any of them, they'll become apparent in play. I intend to try it out thoroughly before tweaking anything. If the players like it, I like it.
Speaking of world-specific PrCs, I'd hate to have to tangle with the Red mantis assassins! Lotsa flavor there.
Well said. PrCs should add flavor and provide player options, not overpower standard classes, as many have pointed out.
I've read builds for characters that dipped into every splatbook class I'd ever heard of (and some I hadn't!), and if that kind of cherry-picking to create the uber-character floats your boat, that's fine. It's just not for me. It's min/maxing to the point of distraction. A straight-class character should be as fun as anything else you can whip up.
The PrCs that blend spellcasting with other classes seem to do it just fine, IMHO. Expanding your repertoire comes at the cost of focus, but makes for some interesting characters with some fun options, so it's all good.
I think I'll be happy with the core and PrC classes as written for some time to come. If there are really problems with any of them, they'll become apparent in play. I intend to try it out thoroughly before tweaking anything. If the players like it, I like it.
Speaking of world-specific PrCs, I'd hate to have to tangle with the Red mantis assassins! Lotsa flavor there.
I agree whole-heartedly with the two of you.
I think I see what KaeYoss is saying, and I'd suggest this is starting to happen with the fighter - the long list of 'fighter-only' feats could be taken out of the list of feats and dropped into the fighter class description. Reminds me of Monte Cook's approach in the Tome of Experimental Might.
I do see PrC's continuing though: as a means to accomplish the truly weird (Mystic Theurge) and the campaign specific (Wormeaten(?) from the Age of Worms Adventure Path, for example.
|
Well, some PrC's, such as the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, duelist, arcane archer, and mystic theurge did get a significant boost, and I think that they are reasonable options for character advancement. The assassin's loss of spells does seem to nerf the class more than necessary, but I have an idea for a simple houserule that can remedy that. The shadowdancer did get a bit of a boost, but not nearly enough to make it a viable class, but not many people played them anyway. I don't really care enough about the other classes to comment on them. I don't think it's that big of a deal anyway, because prestige classes should be reigned in a bit to fulfill their original purpose. They are ways to increase role playing opportunities for characters or for them to specialize in a certain niche that can't be done with just multiclassing, feats, etc. They are not supposed to be the key to powergaming you characters.
One of the things I've noticed since starting a campaign using the Pathfinder beta rules and now continuing into the final rules is the lack of enthusiasm over Prestige Classes.
I have a couple of theories over this and was curious what everyone else thought.
One theory is that, due to the remake of all the core classes, Prestige Classes lost their bite. I almost see Prestige Class abilities pretty much on par with base class abilities. Whether upping the ante with the core classes was intended to balance prestige vs core, I don't know.
Another theory is that the designers are more inclined to encourage people to stick with one core class for the sake of playability rather than dipping into X number of other classes to get what they want. Overall, it's basically saying "What do you need to go to a Prestige Class for when you're base class is still very cool?"
So, all in all, I see many people interested in new base classes, not so much in new Prestige Classes. If they are interested in Prestige Classes, it's for the sake of roleplaying rather than cool abilities.
Thoughts?
PrC's should never have really existed to begin with.
You can make up any PrC by simply designing a feat tree and adding the appropriate Pre-Reqs, a fact that seems lost on many people.
The only reason PrC's exist is to get a cool 'name tag' and for ROLE-PLAYING purposes. They should never have exceeded the powers of the base classes. That they did was a glaring example of what dead levels leave designers with time on their hands to do.
All a PrC is, and should be, is an alternative mode of advancement to a base class. You can do this by subbing out class abilities, OR by making them spend specific feats to get the abilities. The latter is far simpler.
===Aelryinth
Most players cant properly make a balanced class, and some DM's fall into this category also.
responded to old post :(
Well, some PrC's, such as the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, duelist, arcane archer, and mystic theurge did get a significant boost, and I think that they are reasonable options for character advancement. The assassin's loss of spells does seem to nerf the class more than necessary, but I have an idea for a simple houserule that can remedy that. The shadowdancer did get a bit of a boost, but not nearly enough to make it a viable class, but not many people played them anyway. I don't really care enough about the other classes to comment on them. I don't think it's that big of a deal anyway, because prestige classes should be reigned in a bit to fulfill their original purpose. They are ways to increase role playing opportunities for characters or for them to specialize in a certain niche that can't be done with just multiclassing, feats, etc. They are not supposed to be the key to powergaming you characters.
I agree pretty much. The only one I was (semi) disappointed in is the assassin...although it wasn't from losing the spells, the added abilities to me make up for that loss. Its that death attack is still pretty restricted as useable combat ability. It would be nice if they had added in some way to use it faster, or at least useable under a broader variety of conditions.
Anyway...other than that, I rather like that Paizo seems to intend prestige classes to be used to make certain multiclass combo's functional, or to give members of specific organizations a set of uniform abilities, or for truely prestigous profesions.
|
|
Play such a class and you will notice the difference. In theory those mix-classes may look nice, but during play you will notice that your eldritch knight can not keep up with the other adventures.
It keeps up and actually passes the equivalent multi-classed/multi-role character. If you wanted it to keep up with single-role classes, that would make the class broken.
What are you comparing it to when you say it can't keep up.
No class should ever be better in the party role of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, or Wizard then those characters.
If your character fills two of those rolls then it should be half as powerful in each... much as if you took 10 level in each. Otherwise, the class is over powered. The PrCs in PFRPG, for the most part, follow that idea. The more roles you perform, the waeker you should be at each of them. That's kind of what balance means. PrCs now are slightly better then equivalent multi-classed characters. That's good as they logically should given the role written for them.
Like I said, personaly I am more angry about crippling PrC which should strenghthen some aspect of a class, like the Duelist.
And yes, they are crippled compared to the improvements of the core classes.
Hmm.. How exactly is the Duelist weaker then a rogue or bard the classes it was designed to enhance. I mean I suppose you could come from fighter... for the flavor - but certainly not to be a better fighter. Mind you I'm not saying it's not weaker, I would just like to know what you mean.
For me, it's a trade off.. I get d10 hps and a better bab. I trade 5d6 (17.5 average) sneak attack damage for +10 presice strike, which would be able to be used more often then sneak attack, and I trade 5 talents and master strike for 11 powers (Canny defense, improved reaction, enhanced mobility, combat reflexes, grace, riposte, acro charge, elaborate def, defelct arrows, no retreat & crippling crit)
Seems a fair trade to me.
The general theory is that in 3.5, prestige classes sort of took the game over—they were everywhere and all over the place. We wanted to ramp this proliferation back a bit, and bring prestige classes back to something someone would take not necessarilly because they're looking to power game or maximize their character, but because they're looking for a more specific roleplaying edge for a character or for something actually different from what their core class gives them. By making the core classes attractive to 20th and removing "dead levels" we DO hope to see more single classed characters.
That all said, don't forget the most important rule: "It's your game." That, and the fact that it's still compatible with 3.5 means that all the older 3.5 prestige classes are still pretty much viable. You'll want to download the free conversion guide to find out how to make those older classes work with the new skill system (it's pretty easy) but beyond that, it should be ready to go.
Marry me.
PrC's should never have really existed to begin with.You can make up any PrC by simply designing a feat tree and adding the appropriate Pre-Reqs, a fact that seems lost on many people.
The only reason PrC's exist is to get a cool 'name tag' and for ROLE-PLAYING purposes. They should never have exceeded the powers of the base classes. That they did was a glaring example of what dead levels leave designers with time on their hands to do.
Yet, PrCs are popular no? They are fun for players no? Isn't that reason enough to keep them?
I always wish we kept to the Old Way, the original intention of prestige classes: that they were tied to game-world organizations and had in-game requirements, rather than being the ultimate character customization option.
I noticed that the Harrower was not in the Pathfinder Reference Document... is it in the hardcover?
Prestige classes are there for folks who want to play niche concepts. They shouldn't be power ups, they should be an interesting and fun way to explore a niche. Most of them are pretty solid in that way but they are not "core plus" power up classes anymore. Pretty much all of the prestige classes got upgrades, some of them quite nice upgrades.
I always wish we kept to the Old Way, the original intention of prestige classes: that they were tied to game-world organizations and had in-game requirements, rather than being the ultimate character customization option.
I noticed that the Harrower was not in the Pathfinder Reference Document... is it in the hardcover?
Harrower is Golarian specific and not part of the core PfRPG rules. I do like the most of the core PrCs but agree that some lack a bit of flavor... I really don't like the PrC bloat from 3.5. It was a wasteland of the broken and the lame.
Yet, PrCs are popular no? They are fun for players no? Isn't that reason enough to keep them?Its not the "Prestige" thats so popular, its the "same as base class + 1" that was so popular. At least it felt that way.
I personally like the way it seems to be. Take a base class or PrC and be at the same powerlevel. Take a PrC if you want special flavour or something you cant achieve under normal rules (Eldritch Knight & Co)
I think a lot of players will like the spellcasting PrCs. In 2e, multiclassing was restricted to non-humans. They paid their XP into both classes, and had level limits. They were always a level or 2 behind the straight classes, and maxed out weaker, too. It was the only way to go to have a good high-level non-human (who wasn't all that high-level).
The NEW IMPROVED PrCs from Paizo, inc. let players diversify without losing so much in comparison to 2e or 3x. They look pretty balanced so far, and who doesn't like an arcane archer who can cast some good buffs before the big battle?
|
That all said, don't forget the most important rule: "It's your game." That, and the fact that it's still compatible with 3.5 means that all the older 3.5 prestige classes are still pretty much viable.
Except in Pathfinder Society.
I am of like mind with some in thinking the Core Classes turned out really great and fun to play but not all the prestige classes got the right attention. The duelist I felt was changed way too much by losing it's core defensive ability for the ability to wear light armor. What happened to the armorless swashbuckler type? That was a THING.
Arcane Archers got a nice boost as did Eldritch Knights and Assassins. Shadowdancers still feel ... iono ... meh? And Dragon Disciples I felt got changed as well too much (no longer turning into half dragons in the end?)
What I liked about the core classes is for the most part, nothing was taken away. You guys added and in turned out great. But the prestige classes are very hit and miss. Elditch Knight truly is an awesome PRC now but others feel sloppy. They did make me take a second look at PFRPG and make me think I might have to look more carefully at future products instead of just blindly buying anything put out which makes me sad. I liked being a fan boy.
|
|
It keeps up and actually passes the equivalent multi-classed/multi-role character. If you wanted it to keep up with single-role classes, that would make the class broken.
What are you comparing it to when you say it can't keep up.
No class should ever be better in the party role of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, or Wizard then those characters.
If your character fills two of those rolls then it should be half as powerful in each... much as if you took 10 level in each. Otherwise, the class is over powered. The PrCs in PFRPG, for the most part, follow that idea. The more roles you perform, the waeker you should be at each of them. That's kind of what balance means. PrCs now are slightly better then equivalent multi-classed characters. That's good as they logically should given the role written for them.
Ok, can we stop talking to each other as if we where stupid little children?
Everyone knows that an Arcane Archer shouldn't be an Archmage. Thats why I wrote "keep up". The unique powers of a prestige class should enable a PC to contribute to the efforts of the group and put him on equal footing. NOT because he is a Warrior as good as the fighter, but because he maybe can buff himself or enchant his weapon.And even though I am starting to repeat myself over and over: If a PC decides to approach fighting more in a dextrous fashion, he should be able to inflict more damage on vulnerable targets, but be helpless when it comes to brute force or creatures without vital spots. This is what I mean with specialization. And its balanced.
-------------
And just because some of you do not like PrCs, you shouldn't feel the urge to stonewall the users who would like to see some improvements to the game. Nobody in this thread seems to be a munchkin, so give me a break.
Nobody needs a PrC like the Shadowdancer. It just occupies valuable space in the core rulebook that could be filled with more interessting stuff like equipment descriptions with the letter 'B' ;) .
Thats what drives some of us crazy. The shadowdancer could have offered lots of opportunities, but instead it presents itself as a dead end. A wizard certainly can't utilize this class and a fighter or rouge neither.
Let him loose some CON on his way to the transformation into a shadow, but give him sneak attack or shadow pounce for goods sake.
There are lots of excellent PrC out here. Follow the example of the "Telflammar Shadowlord" from the Unaproachable East book(Forgotten Realm 3.0). This is by far the best class ever printed. It combines unique abilities with a regional reference. Its not as good in open combat as a rogue, but more crafty and vile. I enjoyed giving my partymembers a time out from the opposing wizard by lauching a shadow pounce on him.
Thats the stuff I am expecting to see from Paizo.
Ok, can we stop talking to each other as if we where stupid little children?
Everyone knows that an Arcane Archer shouldn't be an Archmage. Thats why I wrote "keep up". The unique powers of a prestige class should enable a PC to contribute to the efforts of the group and put him on equal footing. NOT because he is a Warrior as good as the fighter, but because he maybe can buff himself or enchant his weapon.And even though I am starting to repeat myself over and over: If a PC decides to approach fighting more in a dextrous fashion, he should be able to inflict more damage on vulnerable targets, but be helpless when it comes to brute force or creatures without vital spots. This is what I mean with specialization. And its balanced.
-------------
And just because some of you do not like PrCs, you shouldn't feel the urge to stonewall the users who would like to see some improvements to the game. Nobody in this thread seems to be a munchkin, so give me a break.Nobody needs a PrC like the Shadowdancer. It just occupies valuable space in the core rulebook that could be filled with more interessting stuff like equipment descriptions with the letter 'B' ;) .
Thats what drives some of us crazy. The shadowdancer could have offered lots of opportunities, but instead it presents itself as a dead end. A wizard certainly can't utilize this class and a fighter or rouge neither.
Let him loose some CON on his why to the transformation into a shadow, but give him sneak attack or shadow pounce for goods sake.There are lots of excellent PrC out here. Follow the example of the "Telflammar Shadowlord" from the unaproachable east book. This is by far the best class ever printed. It combines unique abilities with a regional reference. Its not as good in open combat as a rogue, but more crafty and vile. I enjoyed giving my partymembers a time out from the opposing wizard by lauching a shadow pounce on him.
Thats the stuff I am expecting to see from Paizo.
I think the PrC's do a pretty good job of keeping up (excepting Shadowdancer...not real sure why they didn't kill that one *shrug*). While a couple could maybe use a bit of a boost (Dragon Disciple...maybe, still haven't made my mind up about the changes yet, although I'm leaning towards liking it more and more, Assassin, mainly because Death Attack (its mainline ability) is still going to be pulled off fairly infrequently), I think the others do keep up rather well, whithout detracting anything from playing a straight base classes character.
I always liked the idea of the prc helping a PC to fit into the gameworld but unless you plan well in advance (and some players prefer an organic approach to character development which prevents this)you are likely to miss having all those pre-requisites when you need them. It was also a minefield out there with so many prestige classes flying around that were unbalanced. The min-maxers may love cherry-picking the prcs that give them the biggest bang for their buck but I for one am glad to see that it's worth sticking with the core classes all the way. You don't need a prc to find your niche in a game and a good skill/feat selection will allow you to explore a specific role without bells and whistles. Players like bonuses, but how many do you need? 2nd Edition had kits, which were more like role-playing templates and that is really all you need for a bespoke character.
Prestige classes are there for folks who want to play niche concepts. They shouldn't be power ups, they should be an interesting and fun way to explore a niche. Most of them are pretty solid in that way but they are not "core plus" power up classes anymore.
What is the niche for Dragon Disciples? What do they have that is not covered by Draconic bloodline Sorcerers? Which is pretty much a requirement for the prestige class anyway.
What do Assassins do that's not covered by rogue already? Especially with some multi-classing you can make exceptional assassins out of Rogues.
Pretty much all of the prestige classes got upgrades, some of them quite nice upgrades.
Unfortunately, Dragon Disciple is not one of those. Actually, it was hit by a nerf bat pretty badly. Less damage from claws, uses/day for claws and bite, removing the half-dragon template, worse spell progession, to begin with. Was it too powerful in 3.5?
|
|
Prestige classes are there for folks who want to play niche concepts. They shouldn't be power ups, they should be an interesting and fun way to explore a niche. Most of them are pretty solid in that way but they are not "core plus" power up classes anymore.What is the niche for Dragon Disciples? What do they have that is not covered by Draconic bloodline Sorcerers? Which is pretty much a requirement for the prestige class anyway.
What do Assassins do that's not covered by rogue already? Especially with some multi-classing you can make exceptional assassins out of Rogues.
Pretty much all of the prestige classes got upgrades, some of them quite nice upgrades.Unfortunately, Dragon Disciple is not one of those. Actually, it was hit by a nerf bat pretty badly. Less damage from claws, uses/day for claws and bite, removing the half-dragon template, worse spell progession, to begin with. Was it too powerful in 3.5?
No, it wasn't too powerful. Not really. I thought it was a very flavorful class that they DIDN'T need to touch. But I guess they thought they could do better and they failed in my eyes.
What I'm curious about is unlike the classes, are the people at Paizo actually happy with the PRCs they pushed out or are they only saying they are because they have to.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, I'm not following...
Is the complaint that the Prestige classes sacrifice something to specialize in something?
Do you give up enough caster levels that you can't outwizard the pure wizard, but can out fight him (EK)
Is it now difficult to say "I want prestige class X, instead of Core class 20?"
That's called Balance, isn't it?
Ok, I'm not following...
I think the major complaint is that there isn't any draw for the majority of PrCs. That the reward isn't worth the price.
If it was simply a matter of difficulty in deciding between PrC X and base class 20, there wouldn't be a reason to complain about the lack of luster on PrCs.
I think the major complaint is that there isn't any draw for the majority of PrCs. That the reward isn't worth the price.
I thought there are two different complaints. The one you just described. And the one that some of PrCs do nothing new, compared to the base classes. I guess we could classify all PrCs to either of those two categories, or to balanced PrCs. I guess none of them are overpowered.
Let's see. How far off am I?
Balanced: Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster(?), Eldricht Knight, Mystic Theurge
Not its own niche: Assassin, Dragon Disciple, Loremaster, Pathfinder Chronicler
Not enough oomph: Duelist, Shadowdancer (and some of the nicheless PrCs)
|
|
I think the major complaint is that there isn't any draw for the majority of PrCs. That the reward isn't worth the price.I thought there are two different complaints. The one you just described. And the one that some of PrCs do nothing new, compared to the base classes. I guess we could classify all PrCs to either of those two categories, or to balanced PrCs. I guess none of them are overpowered.
Let's see. How far off am I?
Balanced: Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster(?), Eldricht Knight, Mystic Theurge
Not its own niche: Assassin, Dragon Disciple, Loremaster, Pathfinder Chronicler
Not enough oomph: Duelist, Shadowdancer (and some of the nicheless PrCs)
More like this:
Nicely done: Arcane Trickster, Assassin (because specializes in killing)
Balanced: Dragon Disciple(Although some of the class features are elusive, to put it nicely)
---
Balanced but boring because they don't specialize but give you a bit of everything: Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight
Could use a little boost: Arcane Archer(Reduce the requierements)
wasted book space: Shadowdancer, Duelist, Loremaster, Pathfinder Chronicler
Ok, I'm not following...
Is the complaint that the Prestige classes sacrifice something to specialize in something?
Do you give up enough caster levels that you can't outwizard the pure wizard, but can out fight him (EK)
Is it now difficult to say "I want prestige class X, instead of Core class 20?"
That's called Balance, isn't it?
My initial impression when I first saw the Prestige Class concept in 3.0 was that they're trying to do something similar to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (character advancement done through a series of "careers").
As you advance in your current class and pick up abilities, depending on the flavor of the game, you're either advancing towards a prestige class because that's the niche you really want, or you're happy with the base class.
I saw Prestige Class abilities as better abilities, but more narrowly focused, which allows you to really feel you're a specific character in the game world, not "just another cleric/fighter/wizard/etc".
The specific prestige class which stands out in my mind as an example of this is the Radiant Servant of Pelor. Uber healer/undead destroyer. A very useful role for a cleric no matter the campaign.
The specific prestige class which stands out in my mind as an example of this is the Radiant Servant of Pelor. Uber healer/undead destroyer. A very useful role for a cleric no matter the campaign.
With Pathfinder, if one of my players wanted to play a "Radiant Servant", I would probably tell him to take the Healing domain (which makes you a ridiculously awesome healer) and spend a goodly amount of his feats on extra channel or something like that.
From what I've seen of Pathfinder, the choices you make in the class itself or with feats can easily let you fit an archetype without having to mux things up with Prestige Classes.
A prestige class that makes someone better at a specialization than one of the Pathfinder Core Classes that tries to specialize is probably not going to be allowed in my game. If it's a path that doesn't have a "specialization" then I'll consider feats and alternate class abilities before I think about allowing the prestige class.
More like this:
So we agree on Arcane Trickster, Duelist, Eldricht Knight, Loremaster, Mystic Theurge, Pathfinder Chronicler and Shadowdancer. And disagree on Arcane Archer, Assassin, and Dragon Disciple.
Looks like we disagree on the Assassins role. I think it's not specialized enough, while you think it's great because it's specialized. I'd say this is a matter of taste, and nothing we can help mechanically. I guess we could agree that Assassin is fine as it is.
How about Arcane Archer and Dragon Disciple. You seem to think that the first one is underpowered, and the latter is balanced. And I'm saying quite the opposite (looks like we both agree on Dragon Disciple pretty much duplicating Draconic Sorcerers, though). If we have opposite views on these two classes, odds are that they're fine just as they are.
And to sum it up, I guess we both could live without Duelist, Loremaster, Pathfinder Chronicler and Shadowdancer.
Any other views on this?
3.5 had 150 Prestige Classes.
IMO that time could have been better spent.
Most filled a specialist or cultural niche which wouldn't be found in all game worlds. Many could be built around feat and skill selection to a degree and most took away the joy of taking a core class to the higher levels.
If you must have a PrC then they should be generic enough to fit into any world/culture and not overshadow the core classes.
I have to agree that most of the PrCs seem like losing bets when you drill them down to basics.
IF I want to play an armored spellcasting swordsman, then I would almost surely play an Eldritch Knight. IF I want to play a spellcasting swashbuckling rogue, then I would almost certainly play an Arcane Trickster. IF I want to play an arcane priest steeped in both arcane and divine magic, then I would almost certainly play a Mystic Theurge.
PrC's like that have their place.
But if I merely want to add some flavor to my fighter, or my rogue, for example, then any PrC I might take for flavor will weaken me. It will limit my survivability compared to remaining in my base class.
Now, a role-player might argue "It's a flavor choice; it's not about power" but I disagree. From a role-player perspective, I feel that making the choices in the game world that allow me to survive against all odds, when I repeatedly delve into the most horrible and deadly situations imaginable, is of paramount importance.
No group of adventurers will be sitting around a tavern somewhere looking to hire a replacement for their long-lost fighter (maybe he died, maybe he retired, whatever) and yet be seriously considering recruiting a Warrior for the job. A Warrior couldn't get the job done well enough, and he would just die, and in doing so, would put the rest of the group at risk too.
Nor would they hire a fighter shows up in leather armor with a greataxe and who took all of his feats in Skill Focus (perform, profession, craft) etc. - he has undermined his own ability to perform effectively as an adventuring fighter.
Likewise, they won't consider anyone for their group who took a useless PrC and now cannot perform the duties expected of an adventuring fighter.
In a strictly role-playing sense, it is the duty of every adventurer to maximize his surviveability in such a way as to ensure he can perform the tasks expected of him within his adventuring party, to ensure that he can survive the hardships of adventuring life, and to enesure that he can maximize his chances to keep his adventuring companions alive.
Many of the PrCs in the Core book seem to do just the opposite.
|
|
I don't like PrCs for a number of reasons.
1. I really would like to design my character organically and only have to worry about feat requirements, not feat requirements and PrC requirements.
2. PrCs overlap each other, how many different fighter/mage combo PrC classes are/were there in 3.5? A boat load.
3. Some of the PrCs are like band-aids to the 3e multi-classing system.
4. Even more to cherry pick, PrCs become a huge potential for cherry picking a few levels of this and a few levels of that PrC. You need a Phd in 3e to get your character fleshed out at first level.
I really like the concept of the ability of the DM to give some abilities to the players during game play for them to join a certain organization or group or gain a certain skill. I would prefer this be a more organic process though and not one where the PCs have to plan from level one to do it - it takes all of the charm out of it.
Alternatives:
fix the multi-classing system.
Give character PrC feature slots at every even level starting at 6. These would work just like feats except they could only be used for prestige feats.
|
|
More like this:So we agree on Arcane Trickster, Duelist, Eldricht Knight, Loremaster, Mystic Theurge, Pathfinder Chronicler and Shadowdancer. And disagree on Arcane Archer, Assassin, and Dragon Disciple.
Looks like we disagree on the Assassins role. I think it's not specialized enough, while you think it's great because it's specialized. I'd say this is a matter of taste, and nothing we can help mechanically. I guess we could agree that Assassin is fine as it is.
How about Arcane Archer and Dragon Disciple. You seem to think that the first one is underpowered, and the latter is balanced. And I'm saying quite the opposite (looks like we both agree on Dragon Disciple pretty much duplicating Draconic Sorcerers, though). If we have opposite views on these two classes, odds are that they're fine just as they are.
And to sum it up, I guess we both could live without Duelist, Loremaster, Pathfinder Chronicler and Shadowdancer.
Any other views on this?
The Archers requirements force you to take too much non-arcane classes. This is bad for two reasons.
1.) The moment you are taking the PrC you are at the brink to the really powerful fighter feats or class features. Instead you will receive mediocre stuff you should have received with the 6 Lvl.2.) An earlier start into the PrC would give you the opportunity to actualy become a decent multiclass caster if you would like to focus stronger on this aspect.
The Dragon Disciple on the other hand might loose spell progression and receive some useless crazy stuff like temporary claws etc... (badly designed), but the improved bloodline (earlier and more uses of the Breath Weapon, more feats) aspect could outweight this. And the hp are nice as well.