I feel like I am still missing out on good prestige classes from Pathfinder, especially considering something like 4E is throwing tons of cool Paragon Paths that I can see making good PrC. I really wish you guys come out with small PDFs or booklets of PrC or something.
I know there's going to be a cry of "Oh not, no more PrC please!" but I think the whiners and complainers aren't realizing it's not they don't want more PrC, they want less PrC that can be easily duplicated by existing material and more themed ones that are worth taking for a very specific character type/role.
Good example, an "Elemental Monk" type PrC, where you play a martial artist with lightning abilities and such (or fire, or ice, etc.). Awesome, fun, unable to duplicate using existing classes, feats, etc. and so on. A "good" assassin PrC, a bard PrC with powerful sonic attacks,etc.. There are tons of inspirational ideas for PrC from japanese anime and video games out there.
Good example, an "Elemental Monk" type PrC, where you play a martial artist with lightning abilities and such (or fire, or ice, etc.). Awesome, fun, unable to duplicate using existing classes, feats, etc. and so on.
Sounds like a monk/sorcerer to me really. But really it depends on just what ya had in mind
|
Always remember that PFRPG is backwards compatible. There are a TON of PrC's in the works right now, with each AP introducing some and a lot of the Companions and Chronicles books introducing more. But the big thing is that a PrC for the sake of itself is going to head down the road of PrC glut.
That said, I LOVE PrC's and most of my characters eventually end up taking one. I just want Paizo to keep up the 'quality over quantity' that they've been doing so well to this point.
+1 for more PrC's!
I do not dislike em, but neither do I love em. I don't think they need to get into the Wotc habit, of " guys it's a new book it must have 2-10 PRCS in it"
PRC should not be included to just have some in there
|
I would actually prefer new and interesting feat/feat chains than PrCs. Prestige classes tend to lose their prestige when there's one for every situation that you can imagine. Or maybe I just want to have my cake (my main class) and eat it too (some of the fun prestige-only things, like death attack and such). But is that really all that bad? Why would you want to have cake if you couldn't eat it? Maybe I'm getting off subject...
|
I like the idea of a Bard with strong sonic attacks. It makes me want to use a guitar for the PrC...
But a PrC for clerics would be nice. No more Loremaster Clerics if you want a Prc!
Can we get a PrC that changes you type at the last level, like the 3.5 Dragon Disciple? I want my type to change to dragon, not change into a dragon using a spell the book mages can cast before me!
|
|
I wouldn't mind some Cleric PCs. Are there actually any out there?Well, the aforementioned Diabolist....probably not quite what you had in mind, though.
Depends. Is it a Cleric PC, or a Wizard one tha Clerics can enter and basically lose all but spells (Domains, Channel, BaB, Saves, HP, Skills)? Of all Classes, I think that the Cleric needs the most PC's to help diferentiat one from another, and that includes Evil Demon/Devil worshipers.
|
|
Cool, than I'm all for it, even if I wouldn't personally use the class itself, I think that there really needs to be some mechanical differences. Other classes as well, it is just the Cleric seems to hurt here the most. A Dragon Blood Sorcerer and an Undead Blood Sorcerer act very different in a lot of ways, as do many Wizards. Clerics really do not because Domains are so minor, and are not really related to anything. I mean that you can have a LG and a CE Cleric of two different deities that both have, say the Fire and Luck Domains, and they are not that different in the end.
Personally I've never really understood the 3.5 (and now 4.0) tendency to focus so much printspace on PrCs. I've always preferred PrCs to be something that are customized/created by the GM in his/her own campaign.
As they stood in 3.5 PrCs took up a significant amount of space in each splatbook, many of them would never be used in most people's campaigns so the constituted dead space. Finally the quality control in regards to the powerlevel of PrCs was definitely suspect. Obviously not every PrC was created equal and many PrCs had wierd synergies with various classes that made them significantly better than the ones available in the DMG. Others were absolute crap and a waste of space.
I think instead of focusing so much written word on upteen billion PrCs the game would've been better suited with a clear set of guidelines as to what abilities are appropriate in what PrC types so that people could kitbash their own PrCs for their own homebrews.
For instance it would've nice for there to be clear guidelines about what sort of abilties should be given to spellcaster PrCs that offered full spellcaster advancement.
Personally I like how Paizo seems to have gone with a let's stop the madness approach and made it where it's desirable to stay with one core class for 20 levels. Yes you still need a couple of PrCs that facilitate Gish style characters and the wacky stuff like Dragon Disciple but we really don't need Cleric ++ PrCs like the Radiant Servant of Pelor.
I would actually prefer new and interesting feat/feat chains than PrCs. Prestige classes tend to lose their prestige when there's one for every situation that you can imagine. Or maybe I just want to have my cake (my main class) and eat it too (some of the fun prestige-only things, like death attack and such). But is that really all that bad? Why would you want to have cake if you couldn't eat it? Maybe I'm getting off subject...
I also prefer feats and feat chains that add customization to base classes rather than the neverending torrent of page wasting that is the Prestige Class epidemic. The multitudes of Prestige Classes would eventually feature over-specialization (boring) or power abuse (broken) concepts that add very little positive to what I have found to be the more balanced Pathfinder system. Let's preserve this element of the system as long as we can. Yes, I suffer from a WotC Prestige Class hangover, and my favorite Prestige Class was Fiend-Blooded Sorcerer, but mostly because it added a great deal to the base class Sorcerer that was missing in 3.5 (and an attendant boost to its power)(and not needed for the Pathfinder Sorcerer).
If we gotta endure more Prestige Classes, perhaps some restraining rules could be put in place (e.g., you can only take 1 prestige class, you can only take Core Rulebook feats, etc.). I don't want to see Prestige Classes making high-level base classes irrelevant and ill-advised).
|
I am just curious of the people opposed to more PrCs how many like the new base classes? I mean we already had 11 base classes, but only 10 PrCs. Then if you count the three base classes in each of the WOTC splat books, and the books Monte Cook published, we have, what over 30 base classes easy, without going to other publishers yet.
To me it seems like we are getting six more base classes for the sake of six more base classes. All six concepts seem more appropriate as PrCs than base classes.
I think there is a strange embrace of all things Base Class as a repercussion of the glut of horrible PrCs that have appeared over the years. The concept of PrCs is still good and valid. The trick is actually make some WELL DESIGNED PrCs! The thing is there have been some seriously horrible base classes as well.
I have to say I like the elemental monk idea a lot. And I can sort of see it being done with a Sorcerer/Monk, but not quite. I can see those classes as requirements though and then really spin off the powers into something cool.
Honestly I think the six new base classes would really be better as PrCs. I don't think there is enough "meat" to the concept for 20 full levels. I can see 10 level PrCs easily though based upon what they are supposed to be and the roles they fill.
I mean Alchemist... what niche is it for other than to showcase some new rules concepts? A PrC I can see, but 20 levels of what? chucking bombs a few times a day? Distill it down to 10 levels and what the Alchemist does well, will shine through. But 20 levels of that pirate in Pirates of the Caribbean chucking little bombs is going to get real old real fast. OKay, okay, make the Alchemist Undead and I might enjoy it after all! lol
|
|
If we gotta endure more Prestige Classes, perhaps some restraining rules could be put in place (e.g., you can only take 1 prestige class, you can only take Core Rulebook feats, etc.). I don't want to see Prestige Classes making high-level base classes irrelevant and ill-advised).
I'd like to see something make high-level play relevant. The majority of games peter out well before high levels. Maybe some interesting PrCs would make high-level play some thing desired instead of avoided.
And yes I do like the idea of just limiting one PrC. I never liked PrC dipping. It seemed to not be true to the concept of PrCs.
I am as leery of base classes as you guys seem to be of PrCs. I expect rather than PrCs 3pp will likely now start publishing base classes like candy. There were already scores of base classes in various 3.x products.
I would like PRC to have a point other then "how many new powers can we stick in here?" I think they should be crafted to fit a flavor and a theme not just adding more stuff. I think most should be setting PRC's but if they have a strong theme I am fine with other types as well.
I just don't want to see a flood of 10 per book just to be having some in there
Cleric ++ PrCs like the Radiant Servant of Pelor.Unless someone house ruled a serious overhaul, I don't think the Radiant Servent is as good as going straight Cleric now. Unless you don't have the Healing Domain, and even then it might not be worth it.
I was specifically refering to that PrC in regards to the 3.5 cleric not the Pathfinder RPG. However if you had pathfinder rpg PrCs that were class++ with no drawbacks then you'd be porting the same problem over.
I think clerics should recieve a larger share of prestige classes, but it should be 1 per deity/domain set. as it is, only cleric levels stack for domain powers, and I remember hearing something in 3.5 about clerics are supposed to enter deity-/domain-specific prc's anyways
I'd prefer alternate class abilities and additional feat choices rather than Prestige Class design for many character concepts. Pathfinder's already taken a big step down this road with class ability choices available to most base classes, perhaps a little more in this direction and the bulk of Prestige Class concepts are then unnecessary.
|
|
I'd prefer alternate class abilities and additional feat choices rather than Prestige Class design for many character concepts. Pathfinder's already taken a big step down this road with class ability choices available to most base classes, perhaps a little more in this direction and the bulk of Prestige Class concepts are then unnecessary.
And new base classes would also be unnecessary.
And new base classes would also be unnecessary.
I'll agree with that.
|
|
And above all, a prestige class should be able to give you something that you can't get anywhere else, but at a cost. There shouldn't be any of the "something for nothing" prestige classes that were the norm in the old splatbooks.
Absolutely right. Many PrCs came out that were just dumb with power for little sacrifice. Then you had the PrCs and the attitude to dip for a level or two then move to the next one for a level or two etc. I thought that level dipping completely undermined the concept of a PrC.
Essentially I think that publishers failed to see the purpose of a PrC and put out a lot of junk.
But then as pointed out, there were a lot of base classes that were junk as well. Paizo is doing the playtesting for six new base classes. SO far, I fail to see what niche these six are trying to fill that can't already be accomplished by some existing core base class. For example the Summoner can EASILY be accomplished with a Wizard. A Cavalier can EASILY be accomplished with a Fighter.
It seems more that rather than fitting a niche they want to add new rules and resource management.
But then as pointed out, there were a lot of base classes that were junk as well. Paizo is doing the playtesting for six new base classes. SO far, I fail to see what niche these six are trying to fill that can't already be accomplished by some existing core base class.
+1.
I don't like any of the new classes for that reason - they are just rewrites of existing stuff.
And I am not a fan of most of the PrC junk floating around either - they are simply unnecessary clutter, and are pretty much just fodder for splat books.
I fail to see what niche these six are trying to fill that can't already be accomplished by some existing core base class. For example the Summoner can EASILY be accomplished with a Wizard. A Cavalier can EASILY be accomplished with a Fighter.
I disagree here. The summoner can not be made with the current classes. Not at all. The closest to it is a druid and it is little like the summoner past the surface.
The cavilers point was a mounted combat non magical class. You really need an animal companion to pull off meaningful mounted combat. The also can not really do done with the core classes. I have seen the fighter mounted combat in 3.5. Past level 7 or 8 you best keep a freaking herd of mounts as yours last 1 passes. This was the role the caviler was made to fill
The complete removal of a major option for new content is as bad a business model as releasing bad content.
Unless you replace it with better options.
The complete removal of a major option for new content is as bad a business model as releasing bad content.Unless you replace it with better options.
And your choice would be more feats I take it. If anyone seriously wants to complain about class clutter then I think they need to look back over the huge quantities of new feats in 3.5, many of which were unbalanced, and / or repetitive. There was as much "power creep" in the new feats as there was in new base and prestige classes. There should be discipline exercised in the addition of classes, prestige classes *and* feats. Each should be carefully thought out, designed and playtested. Paizo seems to be doing just that. If they weren't committed to making the new base classes functional then you wouldn't be seeing them now. You would be complaining after the fact.
There has to be some form of middle ground between several base classes added each year (by the end 3.5 had between 30-40 of them) and the line of none added ever.
Ok well let me qualify my position.
I'm personally 'not a fan' of the additional Base or PrC's, as I feel just about any 'theme' of character can be made using what is already in play.
I can, however, see my way to new context specific classes designed to harmonise with a particular campaign setting. What I don't like and don't want is when players want to drag the new X class from a place where it makes sense, into the vanilla game. I don't want Ninjas and Samurai marching around in my Fantasy setting.
If you feel the need to add a new class that does something special in a campaign, and it makes sense to be there, then ok fine. Just make sure it stays there :)
But then as pointed out, there were a lot of base classes that were junk as well. Paizo is doing the playtesting for six new base classes. SO far, I fail to see what niche these six are trying to fill that can't already be accomplished by some existing core base class. For example the Summoner can EASILY be accomplished with a Wizard. A Cavalier can EASILY be accomplished with a Fighter.
Ill disagree with you here. Its true that some of the classes have a simularities with the others (oracle vs cleric being the most obvious) but for the most part they all bring something new to the table. As was mentioned already a cavalier couldnt really be done without an animal companion, which I admit probably could have been done with a feat rather then a new class but I like the new class. Likewise you didnt have spontaneous divine spellcaster before the oracle, your only other option to my knowlege was the Favored soul (from complete divine) which left a lot to be desired IMO. The summoner likewise cant really be done with any other class. Sure a conjurer or druid could do a lot of monster summoning but that pales in comparison to what the eidalon represents and has its own drawbacks (namely protection from Evil/Law/Good/chaos). The witch also gives an interesting new twist to arcane magic although as much as I like the witch it does seem a little to wizardly at times. The alchemist and Inquisitor are two I havnt played or really looked at in much detail so I claim a bit of ignorance here but at first glance these are poor attempts at a Gish style class. Each one has an interesting flavor and a few you just couldnt do with the base classes
Anyway, if prestige classes represent a specific kind of training for specialists again then I would be ok with seeing more. However my gut tells me that the answer is better thought out feat trees rather then full prestige classes.
I would like to see at least one prestige class for each school of wizardry, each sorcerer bloodline, and most of the clerical domains.
I think for instance an Abjuration Prestige Class that gave some more abjuration themed abilities at the cost of one or two levels of spell progression (and advanced your Abjuration specialty) would be nice to have, ditto for all the other non-spellcasting things the spellcasters have now.
And your choice would be more feats I take it.The complete removal of a major option for new content is as bad a business model as releasing bad content.Unless you replace it with better options.
More feats and alternate class abilities. And feats are much easier to evaluate for play balance as compared with Prestige Classes and other base classes.
having a few classes that advance bloodlines/school powers/domains would be a good accomplishment
No, hell no. A PRC should not be a given if you do this it should be like the DD and give up 3 or so caster levels. PRC's should be more focuses not outright better then a straight class
|
|
No, hell no. A PRC should not be a given if you do this it should be like the DD and give up 3 or so caster levels. PRC's should be more focuses not outright better then a straight class
I have already thought some of the 3.5 prestige classes could function like the DD. Acolyte of the Skin for example, could work for Infernal/Abyssal Sorcerers. Elemental Savant on the other hand, is not as good as staying straight Elemental Sorcerer.
Class options is the way to go. It would be WAY better to me than PRCs and Feats to see some options for the classes.
It's likelly they are doing something for their new book, and I ahce to see it. It will come to the oldscholl Kits concept which was way better than feat chains and PRCs.
I don't like the new base classes too much either. As I said, some player options could acomplish them just fine, and maybe some PRCs. I don't like the concept of PRCs made for power, I like the concept made for fluff, it should always have an RP concept for you to enter in one and not only mechanical ones.
Also I don't like 10 level PRCs so much, 5 Levels is good enough to give you most of what you need anyhow, and you won't strain too much from your core class (or classes).
I do sincerelly hope more focus on class options than on PRCs and Feats, it's too much to choose from and it hinders play somewhat.
|
I liked the way Saga Edition (Star Wars for the unfamiliar) did their base classes, but the number of prestige classes that came out was a bit too much. They feats (which anyone could gain) and talents (which were class specific), and then a bunch of prestige classes that probably just could've been generic talent trees. I'd prefer not to see that in D&D, but I wouldn't mind some customizable options. I think the Rogue nailed this down in PF.
Class options is the way to go.
I do sincerelly hope more focus on class options than on PRCs and Feats, it's too much to choose from and it hinders play somewhat.
I could see this being a great alternative to a glut of base or prestige classes. Trading out 1 standard feature for 1 optional feature of the same level, etc. For instance, a fighter trading out Weapon Training at 5th level for a bonded mount-type feature could allow a player to make a cavalier-type character without the need for an entirely seperate core class. Or trading out improved uncanny dodge for a bardic knowledge-type feature to make a barbarian more like a "skald" from ancient Norse culture.
Mainly I'd like a better way to differentiate one specialist wizard from another, or a better way to differentiate clerics.
I don't care if it's feats (some feats that aren't so darn generic for spellcasters would be lovely) or alternate class features, or prestiege classes. Mainly I just want something apart from a prepared spell list that sets Wizards apart from one another. This is even more needed for clerics, since their list is pretty thin for effective spells, and they all get channel.
Mainly I'd like a better way to differentiate one specialist wizard from another, or a better way to differentiate clerics.
I don't care if it's feats (some feats that aren't so darn generic for spellcasters would be lovely) or alternate class features, or prestiege classes. Mainly I just want something apart from a prepared spell list that sets Wizards apart from one another. This is even more needed for clerics, since their list is pretty thin for effective spells, and they all get channel.
I don't think you are right, I think the difference beetween characters is more than just sheet and spells. I think the Wiz specialization is already a lot different, the spells u got and the character on itself.
Clerics have lots of diference with diferent domains and diferent deities, it's more of a fluff thing and choice of feats/spells/style of play.
There's a Cleric PrC in Seeker's of Secrets. The Pathfinder Savant, pretty cool chap.
More feats and alternate class abilities. And feats are much easier to evaluate for play balance as compared with Prestige Classes and other base classes.
Feats and talents are, no doubt, easier to balance, but then you're defeating one of the advantages of a class based system. When you choose a class you know pretty much what you're getting. If you want total customization a skill based system is the way to go. 3.0 / 3.5 / PF has offered an excellent compromise, to whit: classes with skills / feats to choose. Best of both world. Some established roles with some customization. Too much class customization / variability within one class and you might as well have multiple classes (to simplify it) or a skill / feat based system (to maximize customization) which ignores classes. So, when does a Rogue cease being a Rogue? When he's too different from other Rogues. It's a line you have to draw and different people want to draw it in different places. You could argue that the current Rogue (or Ranger for that matter) have too much variability to be one class. I wouldn't, but the more you jam under the hood the more it edges towards that line. Btw, I don't advocate having a million different classes either. The status quo currently works fine for me.
|
|
I fail to see what niche these six are trying to fill that can't already be accomplished by some existing core base class. For example the Summoner can EASILY be accomplished with a Wizard. A Cavalier can EASILY be accomplished with a Fighter.
I disagree here. The summoner can not be made with the current classes. Not at all. The closest to it is a druid and it is little like the summoner past the surface.
Really, I have a cleric in Society that is almost all summoner. We also have a Sorcerer that does almost nothing but summon. We walk into a dungeon and start summoning and soon we have so many minions running around we go ahead trip 2-3 rooms of bad guys just to have something to do.
|
|
I think the Wiz specialization is already a lot different, the spells u got and the character on itself.
Clerics have lots of diference with diferent domains and diferent deities, it's more of a fluff thing and choice of feats/spells/style of play.
I disagree. Wizards with different specializations are no where near as different in feel than a simple Fighter that is ranged vs melee. Even a two-weapon-fighting Fighter vs Weapon and Shield or Two Handed Weapon Fighter have very different feels and builds. Same with Clerics. Clerics in general are even worse, in my opinion, with a few Domains being the rare exceptions. Evil comes to mind.
I think they have right about the correct amount of Feats for non-casters right now, but far to short for casters, especially at low levels.