I think PRC's are a great way to multiclass, and taking them away would do no good. There is and will always be munchkins, but those who really like roleplaying for what it is will want as much from the world as possible.
Only thing I require more is decent backstories for each prc, because at the moment they are really poor.
|
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?
Yeah I disagree with the duelist being wasted space, while not as powerful as a straight rogue, it actually makes a wonderful PrC to assist more melee focused bards. And it isn't useless in it's design for any other class that wants to take it. While I agree that it could have been buffed up a little I disagree that it is weak or a waste of space.
Some of the posts I've read on this thread make my head spin. What game are you playing? Sounds like Neverwinter Nights to me. I've just recently got back into D&D after a long hiatus (2e was my game) and it seems power-gaming and min/maxing is the de facto standard for character creation. Who are your DMs? I'm sure if some of you were handed a character with a substandard prime attribute (halfling fighter STR 9) you'd start to cry. What happened to the story telling? Oh my god, the cleric has to burn a feat to wear heavy armor! Woe is me, the friggin' spiked chain is BROKED. Now, I may be old and curmudgeonly, but in my opinion, the disadvantages of a particular class are part and parcel of the choice to play it. WTF is a "character build"? I remember when we just rolled up characters and had fun playing the game. Your favorite PRC build that can do 150 damage in a round is nerfed? Watch the lone teardrop roll down my cheek.
/end McCain-slash-Grandpa Simpson-style rant
Zo
P.S. No offense. With all due respect. I'm just sayin'.
P.P.S. Get off my lawn. :)
I have to agree with the less is more camp. While I enjoy prestige classes, it should be written that once you enter a prestige class, you can't begin another until you fully complete the first. This will go a long way to stopping the cheesers who enter into prestige classes solely to make Super-Guy and consequently destroy the role-playing experience.
I mean seriously, how often do we see Lawyer-Doctors, or Surgeon-Ph.D Economics?!?!? Prestige classes should require firm commitments and not be some lvl dip for power gamers. This is where 3.5 went horribly wrong and became a game-breaker's paradise. Don't send Pathfinder down the same road...
I have to agree with the less is more camp. While I enjoy prestige classes, it should be written that once you enter a prestige class, you can't begin another until you fully complete the first. This will go a long way to stopping the cheesers who enter into prestige classes solely to make Super-Guy and consequently destroy the role-playing experience.
I mean seriously, how often do we see Lawyer-Doctors, or Surgeon-Ph.D Economics?!?!? Prestige classes should require firm commitments and not be some lvl dip for power gamers. This is where 3.5 went horribly wrong and became a game-breaker's paradise. Don't send Pathfinder down the same road...
I got accused of stifling creativity because I dared suggest that new classes and PrC lead to powergaming. Totally agree with you and grandpa Simpson in the previous post.
All that happened is people would have six classes, PrC whatever to create Uber PC.150 PrC, pffft.
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.
Dragon Disciple is a martial arcanist. Sort of a sorcerer flavored version of Eldritch Knight.
What do Assassins do that's not covered by rogue already? Especially with some multi-classing you can make exceptional assassins out of Rogues.
Death Attack. Kill People Forever.
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?
Dragon Disciple did not get full spell progression in 3.5. They got a lame "bonus spell"... as in single spell at 7 out of 10 levels. The spell is of a level the sorcerer can already cast and they don't gain ANY spells known.
The breath weapon in 3.5 was total crap 2d8? I think you need to go back and read the 3.5 version. About the only thing it had that was better is the claws because the Pathfinder claws are limited per day due to sorcerer.
Some of the posts I've read on this thread make my head spin. What game are you playing? Sounds like Neverwinter Nights to me. I've just recently got back into D&D after a long hiatus (2e was my game) and it seems power-gaming and min/maxing is the de facto standard for character creation.
I think the internet exaggerates this stuff. There are groups out there that power game but I think most groups a lot more tame. All these PrCs look tastey but if players actually have to earn then they are harder to attain and often disappointing. Most of the prestige classes I've seen have been when players get the opportunity to build their characters fully realized.
|
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.
It's sad that the only Setting specific PrC, The Pathfinder Chronicler, is severely underpowered, and I don't see anyone hamstringing a bard, which is already one of the weapon "Power" classes...
Perhaps you could throw my last post a reply people? I'm trying to show the other side of the coin, that people taking multiple prestige classes can be just as well roleplayed and have just as solid a story as people who play a single base class all the way through, but nobody's biting on the discussion.
Well I'm kind of ambivalent on the topic. Like many things it all depends on the situation.
I won't house rule stuff like this because frankly there are way too many times when players opt for a PrC and it turns out it's a downgrade. There is cheesy stuff out there but when you have to actually level up the characters through this stuff it's much less crazy.
Perhaps you could throw my last post a reply people? I'm trying to show the other side of the coin, that people taking multiple prestige classes can be just as well roleplayed and have just as solid a story as people who play a single base class all the way through, but nobody's biting on the discussion.
LOL, That's because no one believes you kryt-ryder.
Sure I'll give you the fact that people with multiple prestige classes can have an interesting story, but that isn't saying much. Anyone with a 5th grade reading lvl and a basic imagination can come up with some hairball background/story that justifies his classes.
In truth. I'm willing to bet 95% of backgrounds are generated AFTER the charater has been created. So basically a power-gamer/character op'er creates his broken guy and then says "Oh yeah. I'll fit all this into his background so my ridiculous fighter-1/thief-3/harrier-2/Eldritch knight-3/assasin-2/shadowrancer-2 makes sense..." Riiigghhhhttt LOLOL.
p.s. I know the class combination does not make sense. It was only used to make a point
I know you just threw that off the top of your head, but lets play with this a little. I'll pretend you make requirements in some fashion.Kehlanna Aima, a name that doesn't seem all that fearsome does it? A name you hear and think 'huh, wonder if she's pretty.' Never would you suspect the story behind the name. Born in a little village east of here, she grew up under the strictest of parents, her father, a studious and overbearing Elf Wizard put such restrictions on her such that she spent the bulk of her youth learning to sneak her way past him and her submissive mother.
Gradually, these sneaky tendencies spread, until nearing adulthood she found herself stealing all the time for the thrill of it, lurking hidden in the shadows and stealthily creeping through the dark of night unnoticed. During all her years, the girl had gotten in more than a few scrapes, and picked up a share of fighting tricks, practicing diligently with any weapon she could get her hands on.
In...
That's the point my friend. I agreed with you on the issue of generating a background for multiple prestige classes. However, it was my assertion that backgrounds are generated only after the power gamer has discovered his uber-combination of prestuige classes. It did not spawn from a "True" character concept created by the gamer BEFORE he set down to determine his stats/classes.
|
|
*Sigh* Why is it everybody thinks that taking different levels destroys the roleplaying experience? The levels you take doesn't mean s~#* to your story your roleplaying, the two are separate.A single character concept, unbroken by any roleplayed prestige classes. As I said before, just a framework of mechanics underneath a story.
I agree with this, but most people believe that if you know how to make a character you don't know how to role play. This is patently false they are completely different things.
You can be bad at making a character and bad at role playing or you can be good at making a character and good at role playing and anywhere in between.
Most people do not realize this, especially those who don't know how to make a character. It is a sticking point for people I have played with before.
The I-care-more-about-playing-a-no-bells-and-whistles-guy is noble enough and the been-there-done-that player is really looking for a new or unique angle. It just so happens that 3.5e is bloated enough that this actually plays into the been-there-done-that players hands. It is almost like, "Hey, he has bells and whistles and I don't" *pout*. And I say do your research...
That said, more equal footing to the two player types would be welcome:
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. I would like less choices in PrCs overlap. How many different fighter/mage combo PrC classes are/were there in 3.5? A boat load.
3. I would like a strong multi-classing rule for base classes. Some of the PrCs are like band-aids to the 3e multi-classing system.
4. I would simply like them to go away, 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.
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.Dragon Disciple is a martial arcanist. Sort of a sorcerer flavored version of Eldritch Knight.
Just to add one more point: The Dragon disciple gets Form of the Dragon as spell-like ability, something a draconic sorcerer does not get. In fact the Dragon disciple supplements the draconic bloodline in many aspects and makes it more versatile and useful. (Breath weapon earlier and later on more uses, Wings earlier and later on more speed, etc.)
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?Dragon Disciple did not get full spell progression in 3.5. They got a lame "bonus spell"... as in single spell at 7 out of 10 levels. The spell is of a level the sorcerer can already cast and they don't gain ANY spells known.
The breath weapon in 3.5 was total crap 2d8? I think you need to go back and read the 3.5 version. About the only thing it had that was better is the claws because the Pathfinder claws are limited per day due to sorcerer.
Yes, I wondered which version of Dragon Disciple Samuli had in mind. The 3.5 one is weaker than the one of the PRPG. The loss of the half dragon template is, in my opinion, compensated by the bloodline powers you get as Sorcerer/DD.
Are you saying you feel it's bad to figure out what to play before you write up a history?
Not at all. Just pointing out that since backgrounds come after the character has been generated, it in no way relates to whether or not multi-PrC characters are feasible role-players In fact i'm willing to bet that very few people, if any, could actually role-play these various 3+ PrC builds that we see popping up. Of course that all depends on the GM, but that's another matter entirely.
I want to point out that I am in no way against multiple BASE-class characters. It's the multiple prestige class thing that gets me.
I guess it's because I don't see a PrC as a small matter. In my mind it means you were dedicated to a particular art/path/technique that requires devoted attention and study. Those things just don't appear for one level, and then you decide "forget that, i want something more powerful" which is essentially the reason why people change.
I really don't get some of the complaints.
Arcane Archer: I don't see what the complaint is. Depending on how you go for getting in, your looking, at 20th level, of having a BaB of +16 (worst case) and CL of 10 (again, worst case), with some rather nice class abilities, considering the you get to skimp on paying alot for a magic weapon (since the enhancement bonus of ranged weapons and ammunition don't stack, only the highest applies). And as I said, the above is worst case (It actually assumes you take 3 levels in a non casting class that grants no BaB in the first level...kinda less than optimal there...)
Dragon Disciple: For a sorcerer with draconic bloodline (the class its oriented towards), the class is amazingly nice. You gain +7 casting levels (at 20th you cast as a 17th level sorc), you gain all the powers of your bloodline (as a 20th level sorc), get natural armor and ability score bonuses, enhancement to your core bloodline abilities (bite, wings, extra breathe attacks), blindsense, and to top it off, your doing this at d12 hit dice and a better attack progression than your base class (sorc). I fail to see exactly how this a 'bad' PrC. Its changed from 3.0 and 3.5 sure, but instead of a generic "become a half dragon with no real focus" PrC, its a PrC that has a focus and boosts useful traits for the character type its enhancing.
Duelist: I'm not sure why people are upset about this one. For a melee oriented light mobile fighter, its full of win. A fighter 10/Duelist 10 can hold his own against a fighter 20. A rogue 10/Duelist 10 will actually be better than a Rogue 20 in a straight fight (a dirty fight 'might' be a diff story, but it would probably keep pace). So other than "its not better than the base class all around" I fail to see the complaints...maybe someone could explain?
Pathfinder Chronicler: Actually makes Bard frighteningly useful (maybe thats the complaint?) It grants them the ability to hand out bardic music uses to be used like potions, grants them some new uses for bardic music without removing the ones they normally would get, and boosts survivability. Other than still being a support class, and trading away some of the bards casting ability (which is iffy anyway...UMD an more than make up for it), why does it suck?
Yes, shadowdancer is just as fail now as it has been. But those (which seem to garner the most "these suck") listed above don't suck, they just don't overshadow the base classes. The Assassin and the multiclass function classes no one really seems to have much a problem with, so I didn't cover those, but I can if someone really wants...
Seriously...PrC's are not supposed to grant all the abilities of the base class + soemthing extra. They represent a base class focusing one one aspect of their careers (hence the BaB/Feat/Skill/Ability requirements) at the expense of some versatility. They get better in one area at the cost of some others. Pathfinder did a real good job of that in 9 out of 10 cases in te core book...
The point I'm making is... forget about your character being "an assassin" ...use the assassin mechanics.
Alas my friend, our fundamental difference has been exposed. I view a PrC as a specific set of rules created for character's who wish to follow that path or adhere to those beliefs not simple "mechanics". If that's the case then you should house-rule all special abilities to simply be "feats" with pre-requisites and not limited to a certain prestige class. In essence you don't care about prestige classes you just want more exploits for your character.
Good Stuff
I agree. Most of the PrCs are pretty good. If we run CoT I was planning on trying out the Arcane Trickster. Sure they have crappy BAB but I plan to do most of my sneak attacks using touch attacks.
The Arcane Archer can actually cast more then three spells now and compares alright with ranger and fighter archer builds.
I originally thought the duelist was terrible until I built a test character and played with it a bit. It still can't compare with heavy armored characters but would be great in a setting where heavy armor is not a good idea (hot climates, ocean campaigns). Focusing on crits let him do comparable damage as well.
The assasin is now very focused and I would argue a better class for NPCs. There just aren't enough situations where you can get off a death attack to build a PC around the idea.
I still don't see the point of the shadow dancer. A rogue with a few trinkets in his pocket for UMD is just way better.
I haven't really examined the others yet.
I was very disappointed to see PRCs in the Pathfinder rulebook. I am trusting, from James's comment, that the writers at Paizo will not ruin my game with a glut of Prestige Classes. Please tread carefully. The djinn isn't out of the bottle on this one yet.
So... what was the point you were trying to make with the quote Loopy?
The connection here sucks and I wrote a huge reply and the thing disappeared on me. It posted just the quote instead. I just boiled it down to a few sentences. Sorry.
There's no wrong way to eat a Rhesus Peanut Butter Cup.
|
I can't say that I or my players are interested in either core classes or PrCs because of cool abilities... that would just seem wrong.
I can't imagine using them them just as mechanical guidelines and my players almost always pick PrCs because the _description_ matches their story.. not because it will make them more powerful. Perhaps its the age of my group (avg 44)or that we all started playing at the _beginning_. We're role-players and many of my players create what, at least according to this forum, are weak characters. Everyone creates back-stories first - it is just what we've always done. For that matter, sometimes we've written up characters prior to even being told what system (d&d, gurps, besm, fudge ... some random downloaded pdf system...) we were going to use for play rules.
Because of this, I see PrCs as a plot device, I think of them as alternate classes tied to regions, cultures, races etc... Rather the same way that campaign settings created alternate core class features.
As a player and dm, I've never seen a need for published PrCs.
As a dm, I would rather just write them into my campaign settings.. and if I have to modify one - its just as easy to just create it whole.
As a player, if I wanted to play with class options I would just talk it over with my dm and work up a solution. Pretty much the way this whole hobby started, and they way it continues to thrive - player creativity.
Every game designer I know, is a player first. Sometime we think others might like our ideas so we take a chance and publish them (Thanks Jason/Paizo). I don't think anyone ever set out to design an unplayable class. It just happens that sometimes their great idea looks to you like their greatest idiocy.
I like what I see in the PrCs, like the rest of the rules, they are a great springboard for player creativity..
Would I play one as written.. no, but I could say that about the Core Classes too :)
-G
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?
I did up Dualist NPC in out Beta game so I'm not sure how much has changed in the final with Dualist but that NPC BBEG was insanely powerful. Much more than I'd have expected at being 7th fighter and 5th level dualist. Really kicked my players rear ends with that guy and really I wasn't expect to. Ended up dropping two of them before they brought him down. The Dualist worked pretty well. I'd play one if I was playing.
Bottom-line, Prestige Classes are easier to build and get into than writing tons and tons and tons of alternate class abilities for every class to the point where every Paladin, Sorcerer, or whatever, is just a mismatched amalgation of different alternate abilities for every level a character has. I'm not against alternate class features, I am against using them as an alternative to prestige classes.
To me, alternate class features are mainly good for multiclassing with classes that have the same ability (example, Rogue/Ranger and Evasion...at least one of those classes can trade out Evasion for something else with their class).
And a multiclassd character would look and feel even worse.
Stick with prestige classes for more specialized and refined abilities, stories, etc. Don't ditch them.
In truth. I'm willing to bet 95% of backgrounds are generated AFTER the charater has been created. So basically a power-gamer/character op'er creates his broken guy and then says "Oh yeah. I'll fit all this into his background so my ridiculous fighter-1/thief-3/harrier-2/Eldritch knight-3/assasin-2/shadowrancer-2 makes sense..." Riiigghhhhttt LOLOL.
The problem here is that the player didn't have to live the suck in between. THis is something of a different issue I think "House rules" and "Character build rules" are a little different.
However, isn't it a sign of successful PrC design when you can imagine someone NOT wanting to take a prestige class, and instead sticking with the base class all the way through?
Yes, but it is not a good sign when I can easily imagine nobody ever taking any PrCs, or almost never, and when I can easily point at many of them and say "that one there will never be played by anyone".
In the old iteration of the rules, classes like fighter were so bad that they were just used as the foundation until one or more (overpowered) prestige classes could be tacked onto them.
Agreed, that was bad.
But in many cases, Paizo has done what I see all the time in MMO games. Ooh, ooh, everyone says class X is too powerful, so they blasted it to where it is clearly weaker than all the other classes. Ooh, ooh, class Y is too weak, so they boosted it to outshine all the other classes. Ohh, oooh, class A, B, and C all need boosts, so they got them, and now all the other classes (and PrCs) that got no boosts are weak by comparison.
The fact that people are doubtful about whether or not to take prestige classes is, to me, a sign of successful design work. It means that the PrC is not the only viable option for advancement after the first few levels any more.
True, but unfortunately, now only a few PrCs are barely viable and the rest are completely non-viable.
Too far.
Not a lot too far; unfortunately it only takes a little bit to ring the imbalance bell. I think it's just a case of oversight; too much time making almost universally wonderful enhancements to the base classes without enough time balancing the PrCs to keep them in the viability range.
many things
Well said, Blake.
I recall reading an article back in the 3.0 days, not long after PrCs were introduced. The design goal for prestige classes was to make someone think seriously about whether or not they wanted to take a level in a prestige class. They were considered well-balanced when the most obvious class to get into a prestige class (e.g. rogue for assassins) and the first level of the prestige class were equally good. Assuming then that each level of the prestige class was comparable to the first, you might then stay with the class. Or if each subsequent level was equal to the next level in your base class. Unfortunately that's a hard goal to meet, as different people have different views of 'comparable' and 'balanced' and whatnot.
Bottom-line, Prestige Classes are easier to build and get into than writing tons and tons and tons of alternate class abilities for every class to the point where every Paladin, Sorcerer, or whatever, is just a mismatched amalgation of different alternate abilities for every level a character has. I'm not against alternate class features, I am against using them as an alternative to prestige classes.
To me, alternate class features are mainly good for multiclassing with classes that have the same ability (example, Rogue/Ranger and Evasion...at least one of those classes can trade out Evasion for something else with their class).
And a multiclassd character would look and feel even worse.
Stick with prestige classes for more specialized and refined abilities, stories, etc. Don't ditch them.
I don't see how poring through hundreds of Prestige Classes is any better. I'd argue it's worse because you are stuck with someone else's complete vision of what that archetype should be, not yours.
many things
Well said, Blake.
I recall reading an article back in the 3.0 days, not long after PrCs were introduced. The design goal for prestige classes was to make someone think seriously about whether or not they wanted to take a level in a prestige class. They were considered well-balanced when the most obvious class to get into a prestige class (e.g. rogue for assassins) and the first level of the prestige class were equally good. Assuming then that each level of the prestige class was comparable to the first, you might then stay with the class. Or if each subsequent level was equal to the next level in your base class. Unfortunately that's a hard goal to meet, as different people have different views of 'comparable' and 'balanced' and whatnot.
For you and Blake both...
4 out of the 10 prestige classes make certain caster hybrids viable, the other 6 are class enhancers/alterers I suppose you could say.
Assassin does a pretty good job of it. It trades some of the rogues abilities for death attack and abilities that enhance death attack, plus a few that make the act of assissination easier.
Dragon Disciple makes a draconic bloodline sorcerer more draconic...not just a melee attack machine, but more like a dragon in its entirity. Again, seems to do the job fairly well.
Duelist makes a viable light armored, single handed weapon mobile melee combatant. Class abilities help keep mitigation and damge in line with other front rank style characters, without forcing it solely to the province of fighter types (a rogue or fighter makes a good duelist, although both get different things out of it).
Loremaster seems at first glance to be kind of meh, until you look at generalist wizards, who can fit into the class seemlessly rather well, and indeed, it seems to be aimed directly at. At which point, the class blooms rather nicely.
Pathfinder Chronicler is a decent alternative for people who don't want to play a spellcasting bard. Its a good way to modify bard into a non caster focused class, and in that regards, its very nice, with some rather unique and interesting abilities that bear some though on how to best use them (and answer the question of how to use more than one bardic effect at a time...)
Shadowdancer...yeah...it jst fails...I don't see any reason, other than RP reasons in a mostly RP campaign (read...combatless or close to) to take it...if they gave it sneak attack and shadow pounce...then, then it might be a viable rogue alternative.
Anyway...my two cents (again). Still not understanding why people don't like prestige classes that aren't noticably better than a straight base classed character...being even with a base class is the goal, not better...
More stuff.
Fair enough. I was merely remembering something I read and I did note that it was for 3.0. A quick perusal of the 3.0 DMG only listed the Arcane Archer (often considered too weak until Pathfinder) of the combined classes. The assassin, blackguard, dwarven defender, shadow dancer, and loremaster existed. Of them, the loremaster was one I tried and I considered it a no-brainer, as you got a variety of abilities over 10 levels, vs. 2 bonus feats and some extra abilities for your familiar. That was a case where the choice was pretty obvious.
I have no problem with hybrids like the eldritch knight. They serve a useful role. I was merely trying to comment on the original design goals of PrCs. In my group, I'm likely to take one if I think of one that suits my character and more likely than most to take one. To me, they should be choices worth taking but not so good as to draw people away from their main class regardless.
The Archers requirements force you to take too much non-arcane classes.
I haven't thought it through but Brd8 seems like a great way to enter Arcane Archer. Basically you're giving up only a few spell levels and songs, and gaining some awesome archer powers instead. To me this sounds like a good deal.
|
LOL, That's because no one believes you kryt-ryder.
Sure I'll give you the fact that people with multiple prestige classes can have an interesting story, but that isn't saying much. Anyone with a 5th grade reading lvl and a basic imagination can come up with some hairball background/story that justifies his classes.
In truth. I'm willing to bet 95% of backgrounds are generated AFTER the charater has been created. So basically a power-gamer/character op'er creates his broken guy and then says "Oh yeah. I'll fit all this into his background so my ridiculous fighter-1/thief-3/harrier-2/Eldritch knight-3/assasin-2/shadowrancer-2 makes sense..." Riiigghhhhttt LOLOL.
p.s. I know the class combination does not make sense. It was only used to make a point
I don't get mentality like this. Like ... at all. You can call it cherry picking but thats what feats do as well.
An Example is let's say you were playing 3.5 edition and a fighter. Then someone came along and picked up 2 to 3 different prestige classes to fit their character to give them JUST the right abilities they liked for their character. Of course now he's a munchkin/powergamer/whatever other name you wanna call them.
THEN those 3 prestige class abilities he was after gets rolled into one prestige class, or better yet, one CLASS (like if it looked like the NEW Pathfinder Fighter) and because it's published as one thing, it's now ok.
Some of you people are REALLY hung up with labels. Hell even labels with classes. If someone in my gaming group wants to dip around to make the character they want, then fine. Apparently the core class or one prestige class didn't have what they were looking for.
I myself had to do something I didn't care for. I like my character design of 3.5 edition of an unarmored fighter (The duelist). They destroyed that in Pathfinder by letting them wear light armor and beating elaborate defense into the ground where you HAVE to wear the armor.
So now my CN feytouched character is 4 levels of monk instead of 4 levels of rogue, along with fighter (don't know if he'll even stay a duelist in PFRPG or if he'll become a dervish prc instead now with all these changes). But the monk is now the ONLY unarmored fighter that doesn't rely on spells.
|
|
Good stuff ...
I understand exactly what you mean and how you feel. It does seem the majority or maybe the minority just likes to be more outspoken on the topic.
It's the same if they took the abilities of the PRC's and made them into feat chains instead. Then once again I'm sure no one would complain since they're just feats ...
Dragon Disciple is a martial arcanist. Sort of a sorcerer flavored version of Eldritch Knight.
My point was that we don't need two differently flavored EKs.
What do Assassins do that's not covered by rogue already?Death Attack. Kill People Forever.
One capstone power does not justify the whole prestige class. YMMV, but really, that would be just poor game design.
Dragon Disciple did not get full spell progression in 3.5.
Whoa. How did I remember they did? You're absolutely correct. The new Disciple is pretty much on par with the old one. Thanks, for pointing this one out. That made me change my mind about the new Disciple.
Dragon Disciple is a martial arcanist. Sort of a sorcerer flavored version of Eldritch Knight.My point was that we don't need two differently flavored EKs.
What do Assassins do that's not covered by rogue already?Death Attack. Kill People Forever.One capstone power does not justify the whole prestige class. YMMV, but really, that would be just poor game design.
Dragon Disciple did not get full spell progression in 3.5.Whoa. How did I remember they did? You're absolutely correct. The new Disciple is pretty much on par with the old one. Thanks, for pointing this one out. That made me change my mind about the new Disciple.
The Dragon Disciple isn't a differently flavored EK. Its a prestige class based around a spellcasting class's ties to an iconic monster, and focusing in on those those ties at the expense of casting level. A Dragon Disciple vs EK (just off the prestige classes) gets three less BaB, and 2 less caster levels. Plus, unlike an EK, it actually gives more benifit to a non multiclassed character in flavor and ability than EK does.
As far as Assassins, they also get a variety of abilities bassed around Death attack other than kill them forever, the ability to hide in plane sight, poison use, and a better ability to smuggle small items/weapons. None of which the rogue offers, and offering them as tricks would be more than a little unbalanced.
LOL, That's because no one believes you kryt-ryder.
Sure I'll give you the fact that people with multiple prestige classes can have an interesting story, but that isn't saying much. Anyone with a 5th grade reading lvl and a basic imagination can come up with some hairball background/story that justifies his classes.
In truth. I'm willing to bet 95% of backgrounds are generated AFTER the charater has been created. So basically a power-gamer/character op'er creates his broken guy and then says "Oh yeah. I'll fit all this into his background so my ridiculous fighter-1/thief-3/harrier-2/Eldritch knight-3/assasin-2/shadowrancer-2 makes sense..." Riiigghhhhttt LOLOL.
p.s. I know the class combination does not make sense. It was only used to make a point
I don't get mentality like this. Like ... at all. You can call it cherry picking but thats what feats do as well.
An Example is let's say you were playing 3.5 edition and a fighter. Then someone came along and picked up 2 to 3 different prestige classes to fit their character to give them JUST the right abilities they liked for their character. Of course now he's a munchkin/powergamer/whatever other name you wanna call them.
THEN those 3 prestige class abilities he was after gets rolled into one prestige class, or better yet, one CLASS (like if it looked like the NEW Pathfinder Fighter) and because it's published as one thing, it's now ok.
Some of you people are REALLY hung up with labels. Hell even labels with classes. If someone in my gaming group wants to dip around to make the character they want, then fine. Apparently the core class or one prestige class didn't have what they were looking for.
I myself had to do something I didn't care for. I like my character design of 3.5 edition of an unarmored fighter (The duelist). They destroyed that in Pathfinder by letting them wear light armor and beating elaborate defense into the ground where you HAVE to wear the armor.
Yeah, I entirely get what your saying Misery. Alot of people on the boards (not all of course, but it feels like a majority) have this idea that just because your character concept incorporates alot of different classes that it's somehow wrong or bad or "Oh no! MUNCHKIN!!! BURN HIM" (exaggerated for humor) when the truth of it is, prestige classes are there to complete a character's capabilities.
Why is it so bad for my character to be on his 4th or 5th prestige class (or his 2nd and last for that matter) when I've got a good story roleplayed out and everybody is having fun? I don't understand why people attack multiple mechanical attributes of a single character concept.
OK, honestly...and I really do mean this in a polite way....if your more focused on what a character can do mechanically than any roleplaying reason for doing something (which can be subject to game when the game starts), yes, your starting to min/max and powergame. And I'm not saying I have a problem with it, or that I don't do it (since I do, from tiem to time, depends on what group I play with...I love roleplaying....but if I am playing a group with dedicated min/maxing powergaming guys who want a tactical combat sim, I hold my own rather well, if not come out ahead). But I do call a spade a spade...
If everyone is having fun, and they have howevermanyofwhatever PrC's, then fine, thats your style...doesn't mean PF needs to become overly bloated with PrC's or even have PrC's better than base classes...or that the abilities you want from the PrC's should be dip level features. If those kinds of PrC's are what yopu want...the game is backwards compatable, use the stuff from all the 3.5 splatbooks.
And Kyrt...they dropped the usefulness of an ability that is easily broken abusive to be in line with other abilities of the same type. It was either drops its bonus and allow light armor, or state that the bonus did not stack with any other attribute bonuses to Ac other than the base dex mod. Since you can, in pathfinder, take a measly 1 level dip (which shouldn't be an issue with you, right?) into a base class (monk) and come out even or possibly ahead (depending on stats and magic items), where exactly is your gripe?
Thanks for being polite about the response Krigare, there are some here who don't seem so courteous.
The thing for me, is it really cuts me deep when people try to identify roleplaying and optimizing as entirely opposite poles on a magnet and that's just not true.
Its a public forum, some people are liek that, hazards of public forums, sadly.
I've already discussed how a heavily optimized (or in Kehlana's case, just a random mishmash of classes that don't entirely make sense) can be worked into an interesting roleplay.It's true the two don't automatically coincide. You can have optimizers who hack and slash, but some of the deepest most thought provoking roleplayers I know optimize on levels that nobody here would tolerate.
True, and and I dall into into that latter category for my group (which sucks when I'm not DMing, even the frigging DM looks at me for rules clarification on RAW.) But, you also have to look at the societal norm. Most people experience in real life with optimizers are soemone deliberatly trying to powergame, hog the spotlight, and make everyone else second fiddle. Therefore, optimization has become a bid of a shady biz, known about, and tolerated, as long as its not in their face...kinda like (where I live anyway) illegal immigrants wokring for cash jobs =) As soon as it is in the public's face...chaos ensues...
That's my question. Why do people jump on optimizers just because they milk the mechanics? Like I said the mechanics are a framework, roleplay the pretty details above, you can be a good smith and craft a really strong sword and still make it pretty with various decorative items.
Because we don't have a forum group of our own to play on, and most players aren't terribly concerned about milking every last ounce of juice they can out of a char, just to have them survive and be effective in their own gaming group. Add in the fact that many people who class themselves as optimizers tend to use that as an excuse to be snobbish and say "your doing it the wrong way" and...well =)
What would you prefer in combat, a beautiful gold sword that gets bent on a single blow, beautiful but made with a poor mechanical foundation? or a beautiful steel sword, one that focuses on function first and is then decorated with maybe a gem pommel or silver wire or some gold leaf, that will see you through?
Hmmm...I want sword of breathtaking beauty whose craftsmanship makes the gods green with envy capable of (with no magical enhancement) slicing through a very large block of solid stone =) Then again, thats me in the real world =) In a game (where balance should in some fashion exist) I'll go for an equal amount of both. Which leads me to why you might be finding so much agro in this thread...
Its based around whether the prestige classes in the basic book are worth taking mechanically. However, unlike in 3.5 (and 3.0 in many cases), Paizo seems to very much be looking at prestige classes as either
a) organizations whose members share a large amount of common abilities with each other (mechanically speaking) and therefore merit a PrC or
b) a viable, but focused theme for a character who trades excellence in one area at the cost fo some power on others his original class could do or
c) a character concept that is innately multiclass (the Arcane X classes, EK, MT) to make said combination viable at higher levels of play.
All in all, I think they are meeting their goals...assuming I'm guessing right.