|
My take on 3.x and Pathfinder prestige classes is that they fall into three categories:
* the specialist (Assassin, Loremaster, etc.)
* the multiclass destination (Mystic Theurge, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, etc.)
* the concept (PF Chronicler)
Given that serious multiclassing is now very painful (due to the loss of progression in class abilities), I am wondering whether the second category should be expanded to accomodate more multiclass options. Obviously, many of these have already been attempted in 3.5 in the various splat books, but these will need some work to provide an adequate progression and capstone to match Pathfinder prestige classes.
I particularly liked many of the PrCs in Complete Adventurer, some of which essentially required three (!) classes in order to qualify.
I'm not saying all possible combinations need their own prestige class, by the way.
I'm sure Paizo will release more PrCs as time goes on. The existing 3.5 ones shouldn't be very hard to convert though. Some will work as-is and others just need a tweak or two.
By the way, what's so painful about multiclassing? It looks like a much better option than we used to have under 3.5 as the classes are better as a whole and there aren't as many dead levels.
I am being a total PrC nazi in my campaign this go-around. My rules are:
Does the PrC do a better job than a current Core Class at one of its main foci? If yes, then you cannot take it. (Examples: Archmage, 3.0 Weapon Master.)
Can the Concept for the PrC be played by using one of or a multiclass of the current Core Classes or with Feat/Ability choices? If yes, then you cannot take it. (Examples: Swashbuckler, any Master Specialist.)
Do you want to take the class because it has this one ability you like? You can't take it, but we'll discuss the possibility of feats, spells, or an alternate class ability.
Most of all, does it not fit in the theme of the campaign or the structure of the campaign world? No? Then sorry Charlie.
The PF chronicler is pretty weak, at first glance. I'd think allowing arcane spells, even at a lowered rate, or some other benefit, would make it more playable.
It just doesn't seem that awesome to me.
EDIT: I should start a thread.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The PF chronicler is pretty weak, at first glance. I'd think allowing arcane spells, even at a lowered rate, or some other benefit, would make it more playable.
It just doesn't seem that awesome to me.
EDIT: I should start a thread.
I would agree, having written the PrC, and it wasn't really intended to be awesome in a power kind of way. But it may be an interesting PrC to play that fills a different kind of role in the campaign, the uber utility character who, as the OP suggested, fills a concept more than a role.
If you wanna ramp it up in power for your campaign, though, go for it!
it would be easy enough to spice it up with more uses of the barbarian summoning (which is cool), or stronger barbarians.
You could adjust it based on the character taking the class; high BAB for a fighter-type, a stepped spell progression for a bard, etc. It would be easy enough to blend the PC with the character types that would be most likely to take the class; rangers and bards, mostly.
The 8 skill points per level does make him a good know-it-all.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
it would be easy enough to spice it up with more uses of the barbarian summoning (which is cool), or stronger barbarians.
You could adjust it based on the character taking the class; high BAB for a fighter-type, a stepped spell progression for a bard, etc. It would be easy enough to blend the PC with the character types that would be most likely to take the class; rangers and bards, mostly.
The 8 skill points per level does make him a good know-it-all.
The barbarians were originally supposed to be barbarian ghosts, which made them MUCH more useful in more situations. Also, I'd be all for the summoning being more frequent; it's not like it's that insane of an ability that it needs to be limited tightly.
A second idea, not part of the original submission but one I came up with later, was to allow the PathChron to summon essentially a ghost cohort (representing the shade of some ancient hero) and could "swap out" their ghost cohort from level to level. The mechanics of that were going to be a little sticky, but I think it coulda worked out fine.
I think one or two of the Pathfinder Chronicler's bard-type abilities also in 3.5 were things the bard could not do, but in PF any bard can do, so they lose some of their uniqueness there.
The barbarians were originally supposed to be barbarian ghosts, which made them MUCH more useful in more situations. Also, I'd be all for the summoning being more frequent; it's not like it's that insane of an ability that it needs to be limited tightly.A second idea, not part of the original submission but one I came up with later, was to allow the PathChron to summon essentially a ghost cohort (representing the shade of some ancient hero) and could "swap out" their ghost cohort from level to level. The mechanics of that were going to be a little sticky, but I think it coulda worked out fine.
I think one or two of the Pathfinder Chronicler's bard-type abilities also in 3.5 were things the bard could not do, but in PF any bard can do, so they lose some of their uniqueness there.
The cohort is an interesting idea. Being a know-it-all, the PC might be able to do some limited communion of some sort through the ghost, or get some kind of bonus from the forgotten knowledge the ancient ghost would have. GMs might not like it, but it can be pretty cryptic, if they want.
The PC is poised to be the guy who can read the ancient inscription, talk to the Thassilonian corpse, and generally get to the bottom of things when even a bard might not be able to. He should be a walking library, but more of a ghosthunter than a loremaster or even a bard.
He has a talent for figuring out the clues of an ancient ruin in the field, rather than relying on a stack of books or a spell. He works for the PFS; a sort of mystery, conspiracy, ghost-talking, PFS-supported investigator, of sorts.
He should have some advantages when it comes to getting info when other types wouldn't have a chance, even if they were shunted to a strange place, or even another plane.
Being able to cast stone tell now and then, or some other uncommon divination spells, would fit the PC to a tee. I see him as the "DaVinci Code" sort of character, with an unequalled ability to tease info from otherwise unintelligible clues, on site, rather than studying it for a month, and he has a decent chance of getting it right.
A high-level party in Golarion should love to bring this guy along. A skilled player would love to play him.
I tend to run Gestalt games. I think changing the balance of power so that taking more levels in your base classes-- and even running one or both to 20-- instead of more complicated multiple PrC builds is fascinating and I am mining heavily from the Pathfinder rules as I'm reestablishing my D&D House Rules.
I would like to see the game develop in a direction where Prestige Classes are uncommon, and represent only the most obscure specializations and the rarest and strangest abilities.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The barbarians were originally supposed to be barbarian ghosts, which made them MUCH more useful in more situations. Also, I'd be all for the summoning being more frequent; it's not like it's that insane of an ability that it needs to be limited tightly.A second idea, not part of the original submission but one I came up with later, was to allow the PathChron to summon essentially a ghost cohort (representing the shade of some ancient hero) and could "swap out" their ghost cohort from level to level. The mechanics of that were going to be a little sticky, but I think it coulda worked out fine.
I think one or two of the Pathfinder Chronicler's bard-type abilities also in 3.5 were things the bard could not do, but in PF any bard can do, so they lose some of their uniqueness there.
The cohort is an interesting idea. Being a know-it-all, the PC might be able to do some limited communion of some sort through the ghost, or get some kind of bonus from the forgotten knowledge the ancient ghost would have. GMs might not like it, but it can be pretty cryptic, if they want.
The PC is poised to be the guy who can read the ancient inscription, talk to the Thassilonian corpse, and generally get to the bottom of things when even a bard might not be able to. He should be a walking library, but more of a ghosthunter than a loremaster or even a bard.
He has a talent for figuring out the clues of an ancient ruin in the field, rather than relying on a stack of books or a spell. He works for the PFS; a sort of mystery, conspiracy, ghost-talking, PFS-supported investigator, of sorts.
He should have some advantages when it comes to getting info when other types wouldn't have a chance, even if they were shunted to a strange place, or even another plane.
Being able to cast stone tell now and then, or some other uncommon divination spells, would fit the PC to a tee. I see him as the "DaVinci Code" sort of character, with an unequalled ability to tease info from...
I think that's a good concept for understanding the character type. You could certainly crib character ideas from something like the Riddlemaster kit in the old 2nd Ed. Complete Bard's Handbook - extra chances to figure out riddles or puzzles, intuitive sense for finding things.
I think inside my brain when I was thinking of the summoning abilities would be something like tapping into a Wheel of Time-style tel'aran'rhiod where the memory and spirit of ancient heroes lingers and being able to commune with them and call upon them for aid.
|
My take on 3.x and Pathfinder prestige classes is that they fall into three categories:
* the specialist (Assassin, Loremaster, etc.)
* the multiclass destination (Mystic Theurge, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, etc.)
* the concept (PF Chronicler)Given that serious multiclassing is now very painful (due to the loss of progression in class abilities), I am wondering whether the second category should be expanded to accomodate more multiclass options. Obviously, many of these have already been attempted in 3.5 in the various splat books, but these will need some work to provide an adequate progression and capstone to match Pathfinder prestige classes.
I particularly liked many of the PrCs in Complete Adventurer, some of which essentially required three (!) classes in order to qualify.
I'm not saying all possible combinations need their own prestige class, by the way.
As a curious option you could add a feat that allows you to stack half your levels from two classes together in regards to class features (but no more than double).
Example:
if you wanted a paladin/monk (something that is far removed from any likely PrC coming down the pipe to fill this option) you could simply say that 1/2 you paladin levels stack with your monk levels in regard to class features and 1/2 you monk levels stack with your paladin levels in regard to your class features, but no more than double.
So if you had this feat, and you have a level 7 paladin/level 3 monk. The character would be level 7/3 for all your base stats (BAB/Saves/HP etc.) but his class features would be levels 8/6. Granting a couple extra features for this 10th level character, the character now has the class features at 14th level which seems comparable to what a PrC would have given him.
I would like to see the game develop in a direction where Prestige Classes are uncommon, and represent only the most obscure specializations and the rarest and strangest abilities.
Agreed. A nice selection of interesting core classes goes a long way toward accomplishing that. Many of the PF tweaks help as well. PrCs really don't fit the vision that they were intended to fill, IMO. Instead tehy've become part of an extended game of "how great can I tweak my PC by taking this, that and the other option in order?" (Though there are some for whom they really fill a nice niche. It's just not as common.)
I am being a total PrC nazi in my campaign this go-around.I'm glad I have games other than your game to play.
I simply don't understand the disdain for PrC exhibited in this thread. PrC's were made to be taken, they don't hurt the game when used so why the hate?
Because people see them as "jobs" instead of the character saying, "Well when I was a orphan I learned to steal and sneak in the streets to make ends meet, but then one day the rogue's guild was upset because I hit someone paying protection. They sent their thugs after me and they almost did the job too, however somehow this bright burst came from my hands and they fell over unconcious. I spent the next several days figuring out how to do that again. The wizard we travel with says I'm a 'sorcerer' but all I know is I got some neat magic tricks that help out my sneaking around. The fighter over there taught me how to use a bow and then father came back around. Turns out mom ran away when she realized how old he was. He was pleased with my respect for the bow and talent with magic and taught me the ancient elven art of merging the two."
(rogue/sorcerer/arcane trickster/ arcane archerer)
Prestige classes where put in place to allow things that had been allowed and easily done in 1st and 2nd edition that didn't quite work in 3.x.
You are not your class, you are your character. Build to the character's concept no matter what classes you use to do so. Classes don't exist, you don't answer the guard at the gate's question of who are you with, "I'm an elven fighter/wizard/eldritch knight with exotic weapon proficiency falcata" you say, "I'm the wandering elven knight Farle, and I'm looking for (x)" (whatever x is).
I am being a total PrC nazi in my campaign this go-around.I'm glad I have games other than your game to play.
I simply don't understand the disdain for PrC exhibited in this thread. PrC's were made to be taken, they don't hurt the game when used so why the hate?
Probably because they are one of the biggest features of countless splat books. Prestige classes lost all their shine when they became the poster child of Wizard's book mill approach to publishing rules books. "We need to increase the page count on this new book, start cranking out more prestige classes!!"
Probably because they are one of the biggest features of countless splat books. Prestige classes lost all their shine when they became the poster child of Wizard's book mill approach to publishing rules books. "We need to increase the page count on this new book, start cranking out more prestige classes!!"
Exactly! I love a well done prestige class - one that's actually...prestigious. The 300+ available thanks to the splat market? They add to my DM workload to evaluate and ensure that no one will steal thunder from someone else, find a way to break the rules for abilities, or get thrice the actions of others in the party. A simple powerup can be handled elegantly with a feat chain.
Hate is a very strong word for a preference for something better (like a well-designed new core class).
I pretty much agree with Loopy. I'm not quite as strict, but, at the same time, PRCs have just gotten ridiculous.
The problem, as I see it, is that PRCs have become just another tool for building your character. We have classes, class features, spells, skills and feats for that. A prestige class (IMO) should be something special, a title you use for yourself or a special order you work hard to become a member of.
In my own campaign, I only allow one PRC and it has to be something the core classes don't do.
As for the OP, I agree, more multiclass PRCs would be nice (as long as they have flavor of their own, rather than just being an x/x patch). "Does something new and different" are good, as long as it doesn't just turn into a more powerful version of something that's already playable (here's looking at you, abjurant champion)
I can understand the disdain many feel for PrC's, but I rarely say no to a PrC - the only reason is if it's a setting specific class. Even then, at least there's something there to work with and create a new class.
If a player wants the PrC to add flavor to his character, then he'll gladly do it. If it's a must in your game that PrC's have flavor, then YOU have do it. But either way, a PrC is an option that should be available to the player.
I feel the DM's job is not to outright say "No!", but to find a way for "Yes!" to be feasible.
I think the biggest mistake that wizards made regarding prestige classes in the transition to 3.5 was to not rename them. They clearly stopped being about "prestige" and instead became more focused or specific than standard classes, or perhaps advanced classes.
I personally don't think that classes should ever be a "job" because they're very much meta. You don't know what class someone is, you know what skills he has. Perhaps you could create specific advanced classes that are tied to specific organizations that have secret techniques, but it's not like people couldn't potentially independently develop those techniques for themselves, or learn them from an excommunicated member, or many other things. I've tied certain PrCs to organizations in my world, but I generally find that the abilities they gain aren't so special that they'd have to come from some mysterious organization that only admits people above level 5. Especially since level is also terribly meta.
Instead tehy've become part of an extended game of "how great can I tweak my PC by taking this, that and the other option in order?"
Hell, that's my favorite part of D&D, and for the most part that includes Pathfinder. It's just a matter of how people get there, and what paths are worth pursuing. As it stands, the status quo is against single-classing and base classes.
Pathfinder's already gone a very long way to fixing that.
I am being a total PrC nazi in my campaign this go-around. My rules are:
Does the PrC do a better job than a current Core Class at one of its main foci? If yes, then you cannot take it. (Examples: Archmage, 3.0 Weapon Master.)
Can the Concept for the PrC be played by using one of or a multiclass of the current Core Classes or with Feat/Ability choices? If yes, then you cannot take it. (Examples: Swashbuckler, any Master Specialist.)
Do you want to take the class because it has this one ability you like? You can't take it, but we'll discuss the possibility of feats, spells, or an alternate class ability.
Most of all, does it not fit in the theme of the campaign or the structure of the campaign world? No? Then sorry Charlie.
If you have to go out of your way to take feats and skills you would not take otherwise the PrC should be better at the core class, otherwise why take suboptimal feats. 3.0 Weapon Master I am looking at you.
Another way to put it:
DM: You are allowed to take PrC X
Player: It has a lot of useless feats as prereqs, and it is worse than my core class. Do I really have to pay(take unwanted feats) for a downgrade.
You are better off just banning PrC's.
Can the Concept for the PrC be played by using one of or a multiclass of the current Core Classes or with Feat/Ability choices? If yes, then you cannot take it.
With few exceptions, a player can play any concept he wants, with any class he wants, in any system he wants. The question is, how well do your character's stats actually match what you're trying to play?
I think what you're actually saying here is "If I think that the core classes are good enough, then no."
Out of curiosity, do excessive PrC's offend some principle of yours concerning the structure of the system, is it because you want the PrCs that you do use to seem more special, or is it just a matter of being more clutter and DM-homework than it's worth? Or something else?
you have to go out of your way to take feats and skills you would not take otherwise
This, more than anything else, is my personal issue with PrC's. It's yet another stumbling block in the way of convincing players that the game happens at the table, playing the character, not at home reading the book and planning it.
Not all PrC's are bad about this. Eldritch Knight is a fantastic example. 3rd level spells and proficiency with all weapons? Easy! Lots of players want to play that sort of character in the first place, and twelve different pairs of classes can satisfy the requirement, with no other feats or skills required. It can happen naturally. And for that matter, a player who is thinking about taking his character down that path can change his mind at any point, even a level before, and not feel that he has lost anything or made choices he shouldn't have. Mystic theurge deserves recognition for fitting this mold as well (the knowledges are almost a given) and arcane archer almost does except for that nonsensical racial requirement... but whatever, campaign flavor.
Let's move on to the duelist, another very iconic character concept, the kind which many characters will wind up close to even if they don't know about the PrC's existence. Weapon Finesse? Central to the very concept. Dudge? Great feat all around (especially the PFRPG upgrade), anyone who spends time in melee can benefit from it. Mobility... well, hum. That's kind of what tumble checks are for. I mostly see mobility taken by those wearing medium or heavy armor, who have high check penalties and can't afford the double movement cost... and aren't interested in this class. And look, there's also a requirement for Acrobatics ranks! Well at least this sort of character would have those anyway, but they make the Mobility requirement even less likely to be met randomly. But sure, sometimes it'll happen. Oh, wait, there's one more thing... two ranks of Perform? Well, it's official. Once in a blue moon an 8th-level bard will qualify to become a duelist completely through natural development, but I call bullcrap on any other character just happening to wind up with those requirements. And the maddening part of this is that it's a really cool PrC, which I don't want to say no to outright. Guess it's time for some house rules. Sadly, the arcane trickster is closer to this category than the previous: many otherwise-qualified characters have no interest in disabling devices or the art of escape.
Loremaster, let's see... a boatload of divinations, item creation, high Knowledge scores... wait, I'm confused. It looks to me like the sort of character who would take this class isn't an adventurer. Sure, at that point they can become one... hell, if the campaign's starting at 8th level I'll allow it right out the gate. (Shame my campaigns never start at 8th level.) In fact, this class has always struck me as being your reward (and incentive) for playing a diviner. Remember diviners? Man, they suck... so badly that they only have to lose one school! And... wait, what? They get what now?!
Ironically, the "job" PrC's - core examples being Assassin, Pathfinder Chronicler, Shadowdancer, and maybe Dragon Disciple - can actually be believable character goals, and a character going out of their way to satisfy them doesn't bug me so much. Conversely, the fact that these organizations might not even exist in my campaign world can make it a bit upsetting that they're presented in a core book as a legitimate character option.
And now, let's talk about the player who comes up to me before the first play session and asks about the chances of running into some green starmetal before 6th level...
I would agree, having written the PrC, and it wasn't really intended to be awesome in a power kind of way.
Seriously?
Well, that explains a lot.
I tend to run Gestalt games. I think changing the balance of power so that taking more levels in your base classes-- and even running one or both to 20-- instead of more complicated multiple PrC builds is fascinating and I am mining heavily from the Pathfinder rules as I'm reestablishing my D&D House Rules.
I would like to see the game develop in a direction where Prestige Classes are uncommon, and represent only the most obscure specializations and the rarest and strangest abilities.
I agree. The abundance of Prestige Classes (and the overuse of Feats) were a good part of what killed 3.5 for me. You don't need a prestige class for everything.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would agree, having written the PrC, and it wasn't really intended to be awesome in a power kind of way.
Seriously?
Well, that explains a lot.
Seriously? Sure.
It wasn't designed to suck, certainly, but it was not intended to be a super-butt-kicking PrC. It is essentially a skill monkey class whose powers were designed around survival, versatility, and being able to pull off some interesting or unusual tricks.
As I said, it did a little more power-wise in the draft turnover, and if you compare the Campaign Setting version to the PFRPG version you'll see that they added back some things to improve the power level.
If you are looking for the route I would take in maxing the character's power if I were playing it, I would probably go with maxing out UMD and making scrolls, wands, or a staff your primary source for offense.
|
Do you want to take the class because it has this one ability you like? You can't take it, but we'll discuss the possibility of feats, spells, or an alternate class ability.
This is my number one with a bullet.
You want Shadow Pounce? We'll find a way (Feat, Alternate Class Feature, etc.) that makes it work and not be unbalanced that doesn't require you to qualify for some PrC that doesn't even exist in this game-world, and for which you care not even a tiny bit.
A vast number of Prestige Classes are one or two cool abilities, some junk that nobody really cares about, and a whole bunch of 'dead levels' that just give you what you would have gotten if you progressed your base class anyway.
10 freaking PrC levels, 7 of which are 'advance your spellcasting ability / BAB / Sneak Attack / whatever from your base class' and 3 of which give something different? Fie on that. If it only gives three levels worth of stuff that's *new,* make it three levels long and be done with it.
Even PrCs that bump two classes worth of abilities, such as the Mystic Theurge, could be utterly replaced with some Feats like Practiced Spellcaster. Take it once, bump Cleric casting by 4. Take it again, bump Wizard casting by 4. Then qualify for a new Feat 'Mystic Theurge' that requires you to have taken Practiced Spellcaster twice, for different classes, and acts as Mystic Theurge but advances *both* of the previous classes by 4. You could have an 8th Cleric / 8th Wizard who casts as a 16th Cleric *and* Wizard, with those three feats. He'll only have the Domain abilities, Chanel energy, Familiar advancement and School/Universal powers of an 8th level Cleric and Wizard, but hey, such is life. At the end of your non-epic life, you'll be a 10th Cleric / 10th Wizard with CL 18 in both classes. Nothing to cry about, there.
10 freaking PrC levels, 7 of which are 'advance your spellcasting ability / BAB / Sneak Attack / whatever from your base class' and 3 of which give something different? Fie on that. If it only gives three levels worth of stuff that's *new,* make it three levels long and be done with it.
Because that would be too powerful.
Spellcasters get so little besides spells, that it really takes three or four levels worth of familiar/bonus feat/school/bloodline/domain/etc advancement just to balance out one juicy class feature.
I seriously can't grasp why that's a problem. Not to diminish your opinion- if you don't like it, then you don't like it- but I have no idea where you're even coming from here. Why is taking four levels of a PrC, giving up a bonus feat and/or a school power, and getting something else in return a problem? How would a shorter PrC be better?
Even PrCs that bump two classes worth of abilities, such as the Mystic Theurge, could be utterly replaced with some Feats like Practiced Spellcaster. Take it once, bump Cleric casting by 4. Take it again, bump Wizard casting by 4. Then qualify for a new Feat 'Mystic Theurge' that requires you to have taken Practiced Spellcaster twice, for different classes, and acts as Mystic Theurge but advances *both* of the previous classes by 4. You could have an 8th Cleric / 8th Wizard who casts as a 16th Cleric *and* Wizard, with those three feats.
I think you may have misinterpreted Practiced Spellcaster...
|
|
How would a shorter PrC be better?
If multiple levels of a PrC are doing nothing other than advancing previous class features, then they are dead weight, and should, IMO, simply have been levels in the previous class.
A Prestige Class level that doesn't *do anything* (that isn't already done by taking a level in a base class) is, IMO, silly. Hardly 'prestigious' at all. I need special training to qualify for this class that, at certain level breaks, is doing *nothing* that I couldn't have done by advancing a base class? Seems kind of anti-prestigious, even.
If multiple levels of a PrC are doing nothing other than advancing previous class features, then they are dead weight, and should, IMO, simply have been levels in the previous class.
This is basically encouraging "dipping in" to the prestige class for a couple of levels, then going on to another, and then yet a third to get the most of the "easy benefits" from the class.
The early levels are necessary as an opportunity cost to balance out the abilities you get later on in the prestige class. In addition to working on those class abilities, they also represent working towards the unique features of that class.
Arguing that those levels should be dropped from prestige classes makes about as much sense as arguing that the core classes should get their capstone abilities at level 5.
|
|
This is basically encouraging "dipping in" to the prestige class for a couple of levels, then going on to another, and then yet a third to get the most of the "easy benefits" from the class.
A valid point. We've never allowed more than one Prestige Class anyway, since they were first introduced as some sort of specialized training, and so the CharOp concept of having 20 levels in 14 different classes never really occured at our table.
So yeah, assuming that 'dipping' and allowing characters to have a half-dozen different Prestige Classes is the norm, my option would be pretty much useless.
I've been away from the WotC boards long enough now that I've gotten out of the trend of anticipating how they think.
If you have to go out of your way to take feats and skills you would not take otherwise the PrC should be better at the core class, otherwise why take suboptimal feats. 3.0 Weapon Master I am looking at you.
As a general rule, I don't see prerequisites as much of a balancing factor. The overall damage increase granted by the weapon master in conjunction with splatty weapons was out of control. No silly prereq balanced against that.
Out of curiosity, do excessive PrC's offend some principle of yours concerning the structure of the system, is it because you want the PrCs that you do use to seem more special, or is it just a matter of being more clutter and DM-homework than it's worth? Or something else?
I want a clean slate in my new campaign.In the past, I felt obligated to allow whatever class Wizards produced even if it didn't fit in the campaign world. This time around, I am setting a precedent and letting my players know that, for the most part, they are going to have to explain why they want to take a class. I'm hoping this means that if I can reject it for compatibility reasons, there will be less of an argument about it.
Additionally, I personally believe interchangeable class abilities (such as Rogue traits and Barbarian rage abilities) are the best way to customize a character to make them have more style. I'd have liked to see more of this, but the cool thing is, Feats are already built into the system for this. I'm not opposed to swapping out other class abilities for something from a 3.5 base class or prestige class as a general concept. Though, at the same time, I am not really prepared to allow things like Skirmish.
One thing I do agree on, however, are the prestige classes that split roles. A prestige class isn't necessary for each role combination, of course (Rogue/Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Paladin/Cleric) but there are some that it is damned tough to accomplish successfully with multiclassing and feat choice alone (Wizard/Cleric). I have no problem with the Mystic Theurge and the Arcane Trickster is only a bit more powerful than I'd like. If these hadn't been included in the Pathfinder base rules, I'd have allowed them with some of my own adjustments.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if a general concept of roleplaying or mechanics can be produced with the core classes and ability/feat choice, then there is no reason to allow the other class. If there's just one ability in the class that the player likes, and it makes the character stand out (but not shine brighter) than another character of the same class, then I'll definitely allow it as an alternate ability of some kind. If the prestige class is totally unique, it fits my campaign world, and it won't make the character shine brighter than another character in a similar role who is using a core class, then I will strongly consider allowing it.
And now, let's talk about the player who comes up to me before the first play session and asks about the chances of running into some green starmetal before 6th level...
Exactly. "WTF is a starmetal... no no no, a thousand times no."
|
|
Prestige classes lost all their shine when they became the poster child of Wizard's book mill approach to publishing rules books. "We need to increase the page count on this new book, start cranking out more prestige classes!!"
Particularly when so many prestige classes improved a core class ability, which was then described again, for no reason. If you didn't have the ability, you wouldn't qualify for this PrC, you wouldn't even be looking at this PrC.
And then each one would have a sample NPC, who would have the exact same abilities described again, despite being on a facing page.How many PrClasses had, say, Sneak Attack?
How many times did we have to see the rules reprinted for a level 1 ability of one of the 'core four' classes?
How could you have never encountered this ability?
But, no, here we go again...
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target....
GAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GIVE ME BACK MY WASTED PAGECOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you have to go out of your way to take feats and skills you would not take otherwise the PrC should be better at the core class, otherwise why take suboptimal feats. 3.0 Weapon Master I am looking at you.As a general rule, I don't see prerequisites as much of a balancing factor. The overall damage increase granted by the weapon master in conjunction with splatty weapons was out of control. No silly prereq balanced against that.
The Weapon Master was just an example, but while we are on that PrC, the feats were so pitiful that you probably would not survive long enough to see the PrC unless the DM allows you to live. The class also was limited to Max Damage and Increased Critical X times per day. The max damage was nice, but most people dont crit 5 times in one day. That is one of those features that makes a player happy when they look at it, but then they realize they have been playing for 10 sessions, and have yet to run out of super-crits they wish they would have taken less levels of it. I hate to admit I fell for it too.
Feat economy is important, and if I have to waste a feat slot on a feat I will never use I would something nice in return.
I am being a total PrC nazi in my campaign this go-around. My rules are:
Does the PrC do a better job than a current Core Class at one of its main foci? If yes, then you cannot take it. (Examples: Archmage, 3.0 Weapon Master.)
Can the Concept for the PrC be played by using one of or a multiclass of the current Core Classes or with Feat/Ability choices? If yes, then you cannot take it. (Examples: Swashbuckler, any Master Specialist.)
Do you want to take the class because it has this one ability you like? You can't take it, but we'll discuss the possibility of feats, spells, or an alternate class ability.
Most of all, does it not fit in the theme of the campaign or the structure of the campaign world? No? Then sorry Charlie.
That is rather lame. I mean, so locking the character out of the cool Archmage abilities makes the game fun for them, or you? Locking a character out of becoming the supreme master of one particular weapon is bad? You know the current rules doesn't allow either of those. Not to the extent of what they can do. You only make it harder for yourself trying to come up with alternate class features, homebrew feats, items, spells, etc. when just letting them pop into the PrC is much easier and makes more sense. Not trying to poo on your game, I just can't understand this fear of prestige classes.
I am the complete opposite. I allow all prestige classes. They appreciate it, I've seen some cool anime-combos they come up with, and they love writing or playing the story background for it. I don't understand the fear of PrC, my games have been just fine, if not better, with them. The more, the better! A few were sucky, yes, but that's just poor design, not because of the existence of the prestige class mechanic itself.
The PF chronicler is pretty weak, at first glance. I'd think allowing arcane spells, even at a lowered rate, or some other benefit, would make it more playable.
It just doesn't seem that awesome to me.
EDIT: I should start a thread.
I would agree, having written the PrC, and it wasn't really intended to be awesome in a power kind of way. But it may be an interesting PrC to play that fills a different kind of role in the campaign, the uber utility character who, as the OP suggested, fills a concept more than a role.
If you wanna ramp it up in power for your campaign, though, go for it!
I'm the DM of a forum campaign with a Pathfinder Chronicler character involved, and although she is weak in combat compared with other character, her resources in investigation and charisma-based rolls are invaluables to the group.
I'm the DM of a forum campaign with a Pathfinder Chronicler character involved, and although she is weak in combat compared with other character, her resources in investigation and charisma-based rolls are invaluables to the group.
That's very cool. If she was a bard or rogue, she could have a very good UMD check, and a few nasty wands for when things get heavy.
Acid arrow on the big bad caster can mess up his next spell pretty good!;)
I'm starting to change my mind on the PC, looking closer at what it can really do. Not flashy, but a good, knowledgeable explorer, for sure. A good player could do a lot with it.
There might be different ways to replicate PrCs but none are as simple. They are simply just mini classes that players can multi-class with. They do make things much easier on the less experienced player. The only problem that I ever found with them is that there are too many that I really doubt anyone would ever play.
There might be different ways to replicate PrCs but none are as simple. They are simply just mini classes that players can multi-class with. They do make things much easier on the less experienced player. The only problem that I ever found with them is that there are too many that I really doubt anyone would ever play.
True. You can make some pretty cool bad guys with a lot of them, though, so they're not entirely a waste of space.
Some were too focused to be great PC options in a typical campaign, bud a baddie who's really in his element makes things interesting.
"Wait... How'd he do that?"
"He just can. *snicker!*
If you have to go out of your way to take feats and skills you would not take otherwise the PrC should be better at the core class, otherwise why take suboptimal feats. 3.0 Weapon Master I am looking at you.As a general rule, I don't see prerequisites as much of a balancing factor. The overall damage increase granted by the weapon master in conjunction with splatty weapons was out of control. No silly prereq balanced against that.
The Weapon Master was just an example, but while we are on that PrC, the feats were so pitiful that you probably would not survive long enough to see the PrC unless the DM allows you to live. The class also was limited to Max Damage and Increased Critical X times per day. The max damage was nice, but most people dont crit 5 times in one day. That is one of those features that makes a player happy when they look at it, but then they realize they have been playing for 10 sessions, and have yet to run out of super-crits they wish they would have taken less levels of it. I hate to admit I fell for it too.
Feat economy is important, and if I have to waste a feat slot on a feat I will never use I would something nice in return.
One of the things sucks about prestige classes like these is that, if the prestige class does the basic job or does something very basic (like a warrior type PrC just plain putting out more damage), then a player might feel like they must take that class because it's only natural to want to be BETTER.
Instead tehy've become part of an extended game of "how great can I tweak my PC by taking this, that and the other option in order?"Hell, that's my favorite part of D&D, and for the most part that includes Pathfinder. It's just a matter of how people get there, and what paths are worth pursuing. As it stands, the status quo is against single-classing and base classes.
Pathfinder's already gone a very long way to fixing that.
EXACTLY! Just because you're a power gamer doesn't mean you're not a good roleplayer. People here act as though trying to find the most potent build with a character, or taking useful feats over flavor ones, somehow betrays your roleplaying. Hogwash! My wizard (diviner) is going to become a loremaster. Because it has useful abilities and because the Archmage is no longer kosher apparently.
Now I'm not going to play a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 7/Archmage 3/Divine Oracle 3/Loremaster 2. I agree that's silly. But two base classes and one possibly two prestige classes is fine in my book, and heck I'd encourage people to look for feats/spells/abilities/PrCs that differentiate them from the run of the mill book standard for their class.
Hopefully no one has a problem with anyone who like any particular PrC and want to go through all 5 to 10 levels of it and play that kind of character. I think it is the players who take many one to two level dips to boost their character just because they want the specific abilities that they get for it not to mention the huge Save bonuses that you'll rack up by doing so...or at least used to.
EXACTLY! Just because you're a power gamer doesn't mean you're not a good roleplayer. People here act as though trying to find the most potent build with a character, or taking useful feats over flavor ones, somehow betrays your roleplaying.
I think you broadened what I said into a "roleplayer vs optimizer" argument, which certainly isn't what I intended. Building an optimized character is cool.
Now I'm not going to play a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 7/Archmage 3/Divine Oracle 3/Loremaster 2. I agree that's silly.
That's a huge element of the discussion that I have seen on optimization boards. Specifically, how to order your prestige classes for maximum results to achieve a potent combination of abilities. Plenty of people do it.
But two base classes and one possibly two prestige classes is fine in my book, and heck I'd encourage people to look for feats/spells/abilities/PrCs that differentiate them from the run of the mill book standard for their class.
Yes. I would encourage reasonable differentiation. As I've said a couple times in this thread, I'd like to see better design for new core classes that are viable over the campaign. The spellthief, for example, is a really cool core class that I wish I'd seen before my current PC (about to retire) who is a rogue 10/fighter 2/spellthief 4. I would be spellthief 16 right about now. With good core classes that one can take from day one, there's a lot less need for Prestige Classes.
It wasn't designed to suck, certainly, but it was not intended to be a super-b@*@-kicking PrC. It is essentially a skill monkey class whose powers were designed around survival, versatility, and being able to pull off some interesting or unusual tricks.
As I said, it did a little more power-wise in the draft turnover, and if you compare the Campaign Setting version to the PFRPG version you'll see that they added back some things to improve the power level.
But the class doesn't really do any of that, which is the problem.
This class is clearly meant to be bard friendly, which means that bards are going to want some of the abilities that the class offers. I'm going to be gauging this class based on a comparison between a pure bard and a bard who takes this class.
First of all, there's the goofy "Special" requirement, which means that taking the prestige class is entirely up to DM fiat. And while technically all material is up to DM fiat, the DM has to accommodate the chronicler far more than, say, the spellsword.
That's one strike.
d8 HD, 8 skill points per level, 3/4 BAB, two good saves: it has a fine class skeleton.
No spellcasting: Strike two. While the bard's spellcasting isn't exactly powerful, there are a slew of useful spells available to him, especially in the Spell Compendium. (And since PRPG is backwards compatible, all those spells should be usable.) The pure bard is going to win this one.
Bardic Knowledge: Not great, but it doesn't detract from the class.
Deep Pockets: Okay, I really do like this ability. I wish it were more like 100 gp per character level, but that's not a huge deal, I suppose. It's a shame that the amount of gold doesn't automatically replenish over time, though.
Master Scribe: This ability doesn't really do anything that particularly helps the character.
Bardic Music: You get bardic music, except it's worse than a pure bard. Strike three.
Improved Aid: I have never seen the Aid Another action used in combat before, so I count this ability as pretty not useless.
Epic Tales: This would be a lot more useful if it inspired the reader and everyone else. It's a full round action to activate. Right now, the bard is still ahead of this class. Strike four.
Whispering Campaign: A bard who can cast spells is still better. Strike five.
Inspire Action: Okay, this is a good one. Pretty darn powerful, too. Letting a caster get off another spell in a round is really, really good. You lose one strike.
Call Down the Legends: Once per week, and weak on top of that. Pass.
Greater Epic Tales: Finally, the Epic Tales ability gets better. I'll erase one more strike.
Lay of the Exalted Dead: Once per week, ghost barbarians appear. No, thank you. But I'm giving this class one more strike because it had the potential to be cool and it's not very good.
So, this class has like four strikes or something (honestly, I'm not counting), and a pure bard comes out ahead of the chronicler. The class just isn't very good all around. The class has two useful abilities, and you have to go through nine levels of the class to get them.
No, thank you. Bard 20 is far better and less likely to die.
I would probably go with maxing out UMD and making scrolls, wands, or a staff your primary source for offense.
The problem is that even a fighter can do that.
Yes. I would encourage reasonable differentiation. As I've said a couple times in this thread, I'd like to see better design for new core classes that are viable over the campaign. The spellthief, for example, is a really cool core class that I wish I'd seen before my current PC (about to retire) who is a rogue 10/fighter 2/spellthief 4. I would be spellthief 16 right about now. With good core classes that one can take from day one, there's a lot less need for Prestige Classes.
See, this is where I think Gestalt is a fantastic tool for character differentiation. Your character should be able to work beautifully as a Rogue/Wizard or Rogue/Bard 16, and most of the Spellthief tricks would work well as Ambush feats.