New Prestige Classes please


Advanced Player's Guide Playtest General Discussion

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Krome wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Krome wrote:

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.

:)

What they are saying is he new class, The Summoner, can not be made by any other class simply taking feats and/or options. There is nothing out there that lets you have things The Summoner gets. Not that you can't make a character that casts various Summon Monster/Natur's Ally Spells. Even these two things are completely different.

Grand Lodge

Xum wrote:

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 agree 100% on PrCs. The REASON for the PrC should be a fluff/roleplaying one. And 10 levels is too much.

Shadow Lodge

I would agree if, and only if, there are enough Class Options and Feat choices that allow nearly any resonable charactr to build a concept they want but without needed to sacrifice the things that set the class apart or are needed for their party role. The problem is, that you need to go through most classes individually to weigh the appropriate cost for that feature, which just isn't going to happen.

Grand Lodge

Beckett wrote:
Krome wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Krome wrote:

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.

:)

What they are saying is he new class, The Summoner, can not be made by any other class simply taking feats and/or options. There is nothing out there that lets you have things The Summoner gets. Not that you can't make a character that casts various Summon Monster/Natur's Ally Spells. Even these two things are completely different.

So the Summoner does fill a niche that needs filling is what you are saying. Rather the Summoner offers a different mechanic to do what can already be done...summoning things. So in essence the Summoner exists to showcase different mechanics.

Grand Lodge

Beckett wrote:
I would agree if, and only if, there are enough Class Options and Feat choices that allow nearly any resonable charactr to build a concept they want but without needed to sacrifice the things that set the class apart or are needed for their party role. The problem is, that you need to go through most classes individually to weigh the appropriate cost for that feature, which just isn't going to happen.

Huh? Sorry I just didn't grasp what you mean. I am dense sometimes :) Please resay it so a dumb dwarf can understand :)

Shadow Lodge

Krome wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Krome wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Krome wrote:

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.

:)

What they are saying is he new class, The Summoner, can not be made by any other class simply taking feats and/or options. There is nothing out there that lets you have things The Summoner gets. Not that you can't make a character that casts various Summon Monster/Natur's Ally Spells. Even these two things are completely different.
So the Summoner does fill a niche that needs filling is what you are saying. Rather the Summoner offers a different mechanic to do what can already be done...summoning things. So in essence the Summoner exists to showcase different mechanics.

No, I'm saying I think you misinturpretted the meaning of that reply. I don't know if it fills a niche so much that a Druid might not be able to with different conceptual themes, say the 3.5 Urban Druid. Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you as much as just trying to point out I think you are argueing someting completely different than what they mean.

Shadow Lodge

Krome wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I would agree if, and only if, there are enough Class Options and Feat choices that allow nearly any resonable charactr to build a concept they want but without needed to sacrifice the things that set the class apart or are needed for their party role. The problem is, that you need to go through most classes individually to weigh the appropriate cost for that feature, which just isn't going to happen.
Huh? Sorry I just didn't grasp what you mean. I am dense sometimes :) Please resay it so a dumb dwarf can understand :)

Just saying I would be 100% behind Feats and Class Features to build a concept character (vs Prestige Classes) but only if they had enough to go around for nearly all Classes and Class concept builds (for example evil (negative energy, curses, etc) necromancer cleric vs undead controlling cleric vs healbot vs evil/outsider smiter vs diplomatic face Cleric vs buffer Cleric vs Wizards wannabe Cleric vs . . .).

But going tht path should not rob you of your basic class abilities. Additionally, most of those need to be weighed against the benefit that each class will get from it. Rather than say Metamagic Feats for all casters. Most are absolutel pointless for Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and Bards to take simply because the cost to use is so much higher than it is for Wizards and Sorcerers. Add the fact that with the much reduced number of spells known for all those classes, it is ever rarer that Clerics, Bards, Druids, Rangers, or Paladin will even get to ue them more than a time or two a day, (unless they think it is a good idea to take a metamagic feat for a single spell). Now, there are exceptions, such as Extend Spell, but in general it is a terrible idea. At least in my opinion.

Grand Lodge

Oh and guys, please don't get me wrong here. I don't HATE that they have new base classes at all. I have no problem with new base classes to add spice to the game. The thing is I don't want the extreme that WOTC did with a new base class with EVERY freaking book they released. And then also they added, what 10 PrCs to EVERY freaking book they released. And they added what, 20 new feats to EVERY freaking book they published. The spells weren't as bad... they added a LOT but surprisingly many of them were useful and different.

I don't mind base classes if they fill an empty niche. The summoner already existed they just added new mechanics. Is that really a reason for a new base class? How about if I add a new fighter type class that uses a mystic blade only? What's the point?

The Cavelier already existed. Fighter/Ranger, Ranger/Druid, Fighter/Paladin-especially Fighter/Paladin!

Okay, a spontaneous divine caster was needed. I've messed with making one myself many times. So the Oracle really works.

Alchemist, the stated niche was somebody who uses splash weapons. Shoot EVERY class can use splash weapons!

Inquisitor- okay I just like the class :) whether it was needed or not I don't care I like it :)

The thing is that every single one of these BASE classes could easily have been accomplished with an existing base class and a simple 5 level PrC (except the Oracle).

Grand Lodge

Beckett wrote:


But going tht path should not rob you of your basic class abilities. Additionally, most of those need to be weighed against the benefit that each class will get from it. Rather than say Metamagic Feats for all casters. Most are absolutel pointless for Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and Bards to take simply because the cost to use is so much higher than it is for Wizards and Sorcerers. Add the fact that with the much reduced number of spells known for all those classes, it is ever rarer that Clerics, Bards, Druids, Rangers, or Paladin will even get to ue them more than a time or two a day, (unless they think it is a good idea to take a metamagic feat for a single spell). Now, there are exceptions, such as Extend Spell, but in general it is a terrible idea. At least in my opinion.

I agree :) lol

But this got me to thinking... I hate doing that! I may have had a change of heart!

Go with me here...I may ramble a bit to get this to make sense...

If they simply add new feats and class options that can be interchanged with existing classes to create the new character options, why not just go ahead and add new base classes and PrCs (notice how I slipped in adding new PrCs?) that are similar to the existing classes but add these other options? It keeps it simpler than adding mechanics that require swapping out options. It bloats the number of classes, sure. But this also adds options of combining options. For example, the Cavalier I believe can be made with a Fighter/Paladin. BUT how cool is it to have a Paladin/Cavalier? Or what about a Rogue/Alchemist? Now you get both sets of options.

Sure you loose the capstone power, but most games don't make it to 20 anyway, so you're not loosing anything really.

Uggg....Okay, I may have had a change of heart... I just might embrace these additions after all, but I STILL WANT more GOOD PrCs :)


Krome wrote:


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.

Where did you get the pet? The ability to cast summoning spells is not the point of the class, the ability to have a druid like arcane pet is. Any class can summoner, no other class can pull off what the summoner class does. Only the druid is even close

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Krome wrote:


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.

Where did you get the pet? The ability to cast summoning spells is not the point of the class, the ability to have a druid like arcane pet is. Any class can summoner, no other class can pull off what the summoner class does. Only the druid is even close

Ummm let's see, the long standing tradition of a Summoner is some one that ummm SUMMONS things... I don't ever remember having a PET be part of the classic idea of a Summoner...

So, the fact that as a Cleric and Wizard we can Summon LOTS of things means we are Summoners. Having a pet has nothing at all to do with Summoning things. In fact since all he really summons IS his pet, why is he called a Summoner?

So wait... the ability to SUMMON things is NOT the point of a SUMMONER? Why call it a Summoner then? I think the WHOLE point of a Summoner is to summon things... like 100% of the point. There is NO other point of a SUMMONER than to summon. Call it Animal Trainer or Crocodile Master or anything else, but 100% of the point of being a Summoner is to summon.

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Where did you get the pet? The ability to cast summoning spells is not the point of the class, the ability to have a druid like arcane pet is. Any class can summoner, no other class can pull off what the summoner class does. Only the druid is even close

and if the only reason is to have an Arcane Druid, then just make an Arcane Druid... I mean really, it's simple. Player-"My Druid uses arcane magic instead of Divine magic." GM-"Yeah, okay whatever. Everything still works the same."


Krome wrote:


Ummm let's see, the long standing tradition of a Summoner is some one that ummm SUMMONS things... I don't ever remember having a PET be part of the classic idea of a Summoner...

So, the fact that as a Cleric and Wizard we can Summon LOTS of things means we are Summoners. Having a pet has nothing at all to do with Summoning things. In fact since all he really summons IS his pet, why is he called a Summoner?

So wait... the ability to SUMMON things is NOT the point of a SUMMONER? Why call it a Summoner then? I think the WHOLE point of a Summoner is to summon things... like 100% of the point. There is NO other point of a SUMMONER than to summon. Call it Animal Trainer or Crocodile Master or anything else, but 100% of the point of being a Summoner is to summon.

The pet was always the point of the class, always. The ability to summon a one of a kind outsider that is always there can not be done with the current classes.

As to why, well he summons. He can summon as a spell like ability and always has his summoned minion on hand. He can not summon as much as a wizard of his level at once, but his summoners are more powerful and he can keep SLAing his most powerful summon long after the wizard has burned all of his spells + his pet

If you can build him with the current rules with out rewriting classes I would like to see it.


Krome wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Where did you get the pet? The ability to cast summoning spells is not the point of the class, the ability to have a druid like arcane pet is. Any class can summoner, no other class can pull off what the summoner class does. Only the druid is even close

and if the only reason is to have an Arcane Druid, then just make an Arcane Druid... I mean really, it's simple. Player-"My Druid uses arcane magic instead of Divine magic." GM-"Yeah, okay whatever. Everything still works the same."

Your druid is still a druid. Just an arcane one, he still must use the druid limitations, still uses animals and not a summoned outsider, he still has wildshape + all the woodland, nature based stuff

Not at all like the summoner other then he casts spell and has a "pet". Not that the pets are anything alike

Shadow Lodge

Krome wrote:
Call it Crocodile Master

Bad Joke:
You sure about that? One stingray sneak-attack and you be making a new character...

You're right. That is a bad joke :)

Shadow Lodge

Krome wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Krome wrote:


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.

Where did you get the pet? The ability to cast summoning spells is not the point of the class, the ability to have a druid like arcane pet is. Any class can summoner, no other class can pull off what the summoner class does. Only the druid is even close

Ummm let's see, the long standing tradition of a Summoner is some one that ummm SUMMONS things... I don't ever remember having a PET be part of the classic idea of a Summoner...

So, the fact that as a Cleric and Wizard we can Summon LOTS of things means we are Summoners. Having a pet has nothing at all to do with Summoning things. In fact since all he really summons IS his pet, why is he called a Summoner?

So wait... the ability to SUMMON things is NOT the point of a SUMMONER? Why call it a Summoner then? I think the WHOLE point of a Summoner is to summon things... like 100% of the point. There is NO other point of a SUMMONER than to summon. Call it Animal Trainer or Crocodile Master or anything else, but 100% of the point of being a Summoner is to summon.

The Summoner (Class) is only most similar to a Druid (with it's full Animal Companion). Aside from that, they really are not similar. The point of the Summoner is that they have a long term, single, very powerful summon monster ally, sort of like a cross between the later Final Fantasy Games (FFX comes to mind) and a Warlock from WoW. The Summoner (Class) is not intended to fill the niche of the Summoner (build), though they can do that to a point. Rather it is to basically play two characters (the eidelon thingy is actually more powerful than the Summoner themself as I understand).

Shadow Lodge

Arakhor wrote:
You're right. That is a bad joke :)

*bows*

I try.


Whilst the "Summoner" class can't be replicated as is by the existing classes (and I agree that Summoner is a bit of a misnomer anyway as per above) I still don't see the *NEED* for a class with this mechanic.

A Cleric/Druid/Wizzy/etc can *Summon* stuff, and a good variety of it to boot.

Personally I think PrC's are a pain, and haven't like many of them since inception - I am a much bigger fan of the old Kit concept.

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The pet was always the point of the class, always. The ability to summon a one of a kind outsider that is always there can not be done with the current classes.

As to why, well he summons. He can summon as a spell like ability and always has his summoned minion on hand. He can not summon as much as a wizard of his level at once, but his summoners are more powerful and he can keep SLAing his most powerful summon long after the wizard has burned all of his spells + his pet

If you can build him with the current rules with out rewriting classes I would like to see it.

The Pet was the point of THIS version of the class, but not the point of a classic Summoner by any stretch of the imagination.

Build a Summoner without rewriting the rules... easy... Summon Monster I-IX fill every slot, add a few scrolls... see summoner. Done. THAT is a Summoner. That is what Summoners do...they summon things...

THIS Summoner summons A thing and a few more with some spells. Like I said he's great as a Crocodile Master but by no means is a Summoner really a summoner. Pet has absolutely nothing what-so-ever with being a Summoner- that is a red herring to throw you off the scent that a Summoner SUMMONS things. Pets have nothing to do with Summoning.

I mean really I have 9 pets, 3 dogs and 6 cats... does that make me a Summoner? Druid has a pet- is HE a Summoner? Ranger? Paladin? Fighter can train pets, so is HE a Summoner?

What in the world does pets have to do with being a Summoner? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

Now I am not going to cry and toss a tantrum because they are adding base classes and naming one a Summoner when he has little to do with summoning.

But it would have made MUCH more sense to have a Summoner be a PrC than a base class.

And yeah, Kits rocked. I think PrCs were an extension of Kits for the 3rd edition.

Grand Lodge

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Krome wrote:
Call it Crocodile Master
** spoiler omitted **

WOW I didn't see that one coming!


Krome wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The pet was always the point of the class, always. The ability to summon a one of a kind outsider that is always there can not be done with the current classes.

As to why, well he summons. He can summon as a spell like ability and always has his summoned minion on hand. He can not summon as much as a wizard of his level at once, but his summoners are more powerful and he can keep SLAing his most powerful summon long after the wizard has burned all of his spells + his pet

If you can build him with the current rules with out rewriting classes I would like to see it.

The Pet was the point of THIS version of the class, but not the point of a classic Summoner by any stretch of the imagination.

Build a Summoner without rewriting the rules... easy... Summon Monster I-IX fill every slot, add a few scrolls... see summoner. Done. THAT is a Summoner. That is what Summoners do...they summon things...

THIS Summoner summons A thing and a few more with some spells. Like I said he's great as a Crocodile Master but by no means is a Summoner really a summoner. Pet has absolutely nothing what-so-ever with being a Summoner- that is a red herring to throw you off the scent that a Summoner SUMMONS things. Pets have nothing to do with Summoning.

I mean really I have 9 pets, 3 dogs and 6 cats... does that make me a Summoner? Druid has a pet- is HE a Summoner? Ranger? Paladin? Fighter can train pets, so is HE a Summoner?

What in the world does pets have to do with being a Summoner? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

Now I am not going to cry and toss a tantrum because they are adding base classes and naming one a Summoner when he has little to do with summoning.

But it would have made MUCH more sense to have a Summoner be a PrC than a base class.

And yeah, Kits rocked. I think PrCs were an extension of Kits for the 3rd edition.

A big failing of the summoner druid, cleric, sorcerer, and wizard was that summoned creatures cant enter a protection or magic circle vs their alignment. The Eidalon can. Seriously when you got past 10 every caster class and a lot of regular monsters had those spells either active or as at will abilities negating the entire play style. Very similar to how Trueseeing negated the whole illusion school and Mind blank negated the whole enchantment school. The summoner (bad name Ill agree there) is an attempt at making the "I summon monsters" playstyle viable and I think it accomplishes that


Krome wrote:


The Pet was the point of THIS version of the class, but not the point of a classic Summoner by any stretch of the imagination.

There is the issue, you can not pull the class off at all. You simply do not like the name

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Krome wrote:


The Pet was the point of THIS version of the class, but not the point of a classic Summoner by any stretch of the imagination.

There is the issue, you can not pull the class off at all. You simply do not like the name

lol OKAY FINE I don't like the name. He does fine as a summoner, using the spells. But the part of the Pet makes no sense at all for a Summoner. Give him SUmmon Nature's Ally as a SLA instead of a pet. lol

BTW it has begun... the glut is on the move... Just browsing and I have already found 23 new base classes for Pathfinder BEFORE the six that Paizo is offering. Looks like base classes are the PrC and feat junk of old.

Now, back to PrCs...

Excluding the plethora of bad PrCs that permeated for years, what exactly do you guys NOT like about PrCs, and what exactly do you LIKE about PrCs?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Krome wrote:


BTW it has begun... the glut is on the move... Just browsing and I have already found 23 new base classes for Pathfinder BEFORE the six that Paizo is offering. Looks like base classes are the PrC and feat junk of old.

Now, back to PrCs...

Excluding the plethora of bad PrCs that permeated for years, what exactly do you guys NOT like about PrCs, and what exactly do you LIKE about PrCs?

That's rather disengenious. Seriously. If you want to go that route, you need to go count all the 3rd party stuff for 3.0 and 3.5 before you start complaining about the 3rd party stuff for PF.

And honestly, you better be glad about that 3rd party glut you are complaining about. It means 3rd parties are supporting PF. You don't like those 3rd party base classes, fine, but don't blame Paizo because 3rd parties created 2 dozen base classes for their system.

If you want to complain about glut, complain about the core company offerings, don't lump in 3rd party stuff for Paizo but compare it to WoTC glut without 3rd party inclusions.


Krome wrote:
BTW it has begun... the glut is on the move... Just browsing and I have already found 23 new base classes for Pathfinder BEFORE the six that Paizo is offering. Looks like base classes are the PrC and feat junk of old.

Not in my Universe!

The only stuff I will cop to people rolling with is the stuff in the Pathfinder Rulebook, and *maybe* from the APG when that comes out.

Anyhow, the Summoner debate is a pretty dead one. Summoner is a bad name for the class, because Summoning is not a core of what they do - Its an Everquest Mage with his Pet. Next will come the Necromancer PrC, which is a Summoner with an Undead Pet, and then an Elementalist with an Elemental Pet, then a Nature Moon Childe with an Animal, and lastly a Pokemon class with a giant Pikachu.

Frankly the Kits of old would have meant that you simply had ONE class, with a few add ons - enough small features to give the flavour you wanted, and enough fluff to keep it looking right, and one less headache for the GM in that all the differences fit on one page - rather than have to learn a mountain of quaint PrC's.

Just because you want a touch of extra flavour should not mean a new class must be written up.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Krome wrote:

Now, back to PrCs...

Excluding the plethora of bad PrCs that permeated for years, what exactly do you guys NOT like about PrCs, and what exactly do you LIKE about PrCs?

Good: changing and expanding classes in ways just new feats and/or class features cannot. Maybe some that actually are PRESTIGE classes, ie, when a peasant hears about a Paladin 5/Knight of the such-and-such 10, they actually give a damn about them more than a Paladin 15, for example, not because of power or anything, but because of respect.

Grand Lodge

mdt wrote:

EDITED

I sure didn't mean for it to be disingenuous. I was just pointing out that the glut of base classes has already started. There were some complaints before about the glut of PrCs.

And I never ever said Paizo was at fault for anything.

Grand Lodge

Kvantum wrote:
Krome wrote:

Now, back to PrCs...

Excluding the plethora of bad PrCs that permeated for years, what exactly do you guys NOT like about PrCs, and what exactly do you LIKE about PrCs?

Good: changing and expanding classes in ways just new feats and/or class features cannot. Maybe some that actually are PRESTIGE classes, ie, when a peasant hears about a Paladin 5/Knight of the such-and-such 10, they actually give a damn about them more than a Paladin 15, for example, not because of power or anything, but because of respect.

darn right! lol

I like the idea of prestige classes having PRESTIGE, like you said, respect. I was never personally fond of PrC dipping because it seemed to me to diminish the prestige, respect of the class.

What do I LIKE about PrCs:
They add a flavor and richness to the game. They allow a player to focus on a particular aspect of his character without being 100% focused on that part- because he still has his other class levels. They offer a way for a GM to take characters and make them a part of something bigger than themselves (well a lot of PrCs do- not all).

What I DON'T LIKE about PrCs:
Level dipping. Since it is treated as just another class, you can dip in and out of as many PrCs as you want. To me this devalues the Prestigious nature of the class. Another thing I seriously disliked about PrCs is the power creep. In order to make PrCs attractive they often included powers that were super incredible and far beyond what base classes offered.

Grand Lodge

Shifty wrote:

Anyhow, the Summoner debate is a pretty dead one. Summoner is a bad name for the class, because Summoning is not a core of what they do - Its an Everquest Mage with his Pet. Next will come the Necromancer PrC, which is a Summoner with an Undead Pet, and then an Elementalist with an Elemental Pet, then a Nature Moon Childe with an Animal, and lastly a Pokemon class with a giant Pikachu.

OH OH OH I WANT a Pikachu... just jidding lol

Shifty wrote:

Frankly the Kits of old would have meant that you simply had ONE class, with a few add ons - enough small features to give the flavour you wanted, and enough fluff to keep it looking right, and one less headache for the GM in that all the differences fit on one page - rather than have to learn a mountain of quaint PrC's.

Just because you want a touch of extra flavour should not mean a new class must be written up.

I can agree 100% with this. I have heard a lot of support for the old kits.

Let me ask you then, CAN kits be somehow reformed as PrCs in some way? Let's throw out any preconceived notions of a PrC for a moment. Can kits be feasible in Pathfinder?


Krome wrote:
Let me ask you then, CAN kits be somehow reformed as PrCs in some way? Let's throw out any preconceived notions of a PrC for a moment. Can kits be feasible in Pathfinder?

I'll take "very easily" for $50 thanks Krome :)


Prestige class to me is something like the Hell Knights, or to Harrower where your class is tied to something going on in the campaign world.
The way I see it prestige classes fit a lot better in campaign settings than they do in the core setting. Paizo has some great campaign specific prestige classes. Most prestige classes that don't fit into this mold are generally either overpowered or just plain horrible (mostly the latter).

The new base classes are essentially 'prestige' classes in that they are classes that fill a for more specific niche in the game. I LIKE that there are more specific options for base classes and that you can run a character based on these options for 12 full levels.

Grand Lodge

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Prestige class to me is something like the Hell Knights, or to Harrower where your class is tied to something going on in the campaign world.

The way I see it prestige classes fit a lot better in campaign settings than they do in the core setting. Paizo has some great campaign specific prestige classes. Most prestige classes that don't fit into this mold are generally either overpowered or just plain horrible (mostly the latter).

The new base classes are essentially 'prestige' classes in that they are classes that fill a for more specific niche in the game. I LIKE that there are more specific options for base classes and that you can run a character based on these options for 12 full levels.

yeah agreed PrCs do fit campaign specific roles best.

So does that mean that Paizo, and/or other publishers, should drop "generic" PrCs, something that plays fills a common focused role in many different campaigns, and only create PrCs for a specific campaign role?

For example, Knight was mentioned above. Should one publish a Knight Prestige Class that fills a common role in many campaigns, or should the focus be even tighter and it should be "Red Knight of Absalom"? Is there a place any more for the PrC that fills the common role?

Personally I think there is, but I'd really like to hear other opinions and why and why not?

Grand Lodge

Shifty wrote:
Krome wrote:
Let me ask you then, CAN kits be somehow reformed as PrCs in some way? Let's throw out any preconceived notions of a PrC for a moment. Can kits be feasible in Pathfinder?
I'll take "very easily" for $50 thanks Krome :)

lol then you should start a topic for Kits for Pathfinder! lol


Krome wrote:
lol then you should start a topic for Kits for Pathfinder! lol

I'd need the Asbestos Suit for $100 due to the flame war of War-X, Blade-X, X-Warrior, X-Blade, Summoner-mon fans that came howling it down.

Simply put, I havent seen *ANY* PrC so far that could not have simply been a kit wrapped over its core class.


Xum wrote:
Ressy wrote:

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.

I beg to differ, I'm playing a Diviner, and the only divination flavor I get from my Specialization is that I'm slightly better at scrying, I know when I'm being scryed upon, and I generally manage to get the hell out of dodge before anyone else can act in combat.

Oh, and I can give up an action to give someone else a small bonus to everything they do for a round, which comes up very infrequently.

On the whole since every Wizard can have every spell, and there are some very iconic spells that just about every Wizard is expected to have in their spellbook or prepared, the Schools don't really differentiate Wizards from eachother very much.

The only real individuality my character has, class-wise is from the 3 levels of Loremaster I have, which gives me the ability to roll every single knowledge check there is. I took loremaster because there really isn't any reason not to, apart from advancing the limited benefits I get from my School. Oh, and having to sink 4 feats, only one of which isn't on the short list of feats that are worth getting for Wizards.

And I do roleplay the character in a unique manner, it just irks me that my school specialization adds practically no flavor, and there's no way to increase the "diviner" portion of my character short of gimping him significantly in combat with sup-par spell selections that may end up getting us all killed.


Krome wrote:

I like the idea of prestige classes having PRESTIGE, like you said, respect. I was never personally fond of PrC dipping because it seemed to me to diminish the prestige, respect of the class.

Maybe the prestige class should be something that is committed to. Keep them 3 or 5 level and require the player to finish them once they start. Perhaps lose the benefits if they don't finish. That would force players to consider the choices they have. H3ll, even a 10 level class. "Down this path, once you have trodden, forever will it dominate your life". To paraphrase the short green guy. If they want to dip, let them do it in base classes, keeping the prestige classes special.

Krome wrote:


What do I LIKE about PrCs:
They add a flavor and richness to the game. They allow a player to focus on a particular aspect of his character without being 100% focused on that part- because he still has his other class levels. They offer a way for a GM to take characters and make them a part of something bigger than themselves (well a lot of PrCs do- not all).

They do add flavor. They should represent, imo, variations in base classes, different directions that can be taken. Be more picky about entry requirements. And yes, organizational PrCs are good. I use them to mark the entry into secret societies within religions, for example.

Krome wrote:


What I DON'T LIKE about PrCs:
Level dipping. Since it is treated as just another class, you can dip in and out of as many PrCs as you want. To me this devalues the Prestigious nature of the class. Another thing I seriously disliked about PrCs is the power creep. In order to make PrCs attractive they often included powers that were super incredible and far beyond what base classes offered.

That's why I suggest locking them in (or at least losing most of the benefits if you don't stay the course). As for power creep, the give and take should be balanced, that's a matter of design.

My 2cp.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I would prefer to see in the Gamemastery Guide, strong, detailed guidelines for how to build PRCs to suit our own campaigns.

Of course, if the APG includes a small number of unique, niche-filling, well-realized PRCs I'm not going to complain, but it's not a priority for me personally.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Razz wrote:


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

Not really the same. You lose out on BAB, monk abilities, skill points, hit points and some unique special abilities that doesn't need a spell to duplicate.


Krome wrote:

yeah agreed PrCs do fit campaign specific roles best.

So does that mean that Paizo, and/or other publishers, should drop "generic" PrCs, something that plays fills a common focused role in many different campaigns, and only create PrCs for a specific campaign role?

For example, Knight was mentioned above. Should one publish a Knight Prestige Class that fills a common role in many campaigns, or should the focus be even tighter and it should be "Red Knight of Absalom"? Is there a place any more for the PrC that fills the common role?

Personally I think there is, but I'd really like to hear other opinions and why and why not?

The problem I see with "knight" as a PrC is there are already options to play a 'knight' in the core book (Fighter, Paladin) and even more valid 'knight' base class options slated for the APG (Cavalier, Templars). What unique things would a knight class bring? Without some sort of in campaign hooks a prestige class isn't any different from a base class. A knight of XXX is no more prestigious than a Paladin unless "XXX" has some meaning in the campaign world. You could conceivably build a generic concept but why?

"Hell Knight" is a unique prestige classed designed to fill a very specific niche in a campaign...

Shadow Lodge

I wouldn't mind seeing a Cleric "knight" prestige class, class feature, kit, or whatever. I even mostly like the PHB 2 Knight Class, though it was certainly lacking at a few things like Feats.


Krome wrote:
Shifty wrote:
a Pokemon class with a giant Pikachu.
OH OH OH I WANT a Pikachu... just jidding lol

Play a Summoner. Almost any bipedal, quadraped(including Bug types), or serpentine pokemon can be made with the eidolon. So can Digimon for that matter.


put me in the more PrCs camp


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
PRC's should be more focuses not outright better then a straight class

Indeed. And the focus must be carefully weighed. If the "focus" still makes the character better than the base class in most situations, then it's time to re-think the class.


Dragonborn3 wrote:

I like the idea of a Bard with strong sonic attacks. It makes me want to use a guitar for the PrC...

The big question is: does it go up to 11? :P


Urizen wrote:
The big question is: does it go up to 11? :P

Of course, but I can sell you one that goes up to 12 :)

Liberty's Edge

Arakhor wrote:
Urizen wrote:
The big question is: does it go up to 11? :P
Of course, but I can sell you one that goes up to 12 :)

I hate standard amps. They should remain in metric.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Of course, if the APG includes a small number of unique, niche-filling, well-realized PRCs I'm not going to complain, but it's not a priority for me personally.

to the me, The APG should have a few more PrCs but the real niche filling ones could be for the Adventure Paths and Companion series


I don't mind new prestige classes, at least if they are adding something for some reason that isn't because it is just better.

The base classes are alright, I rather see a few well done rather than a bunch that aren't quite there yet though, they are more easily balanced though, and I like the inquisitor very much, the others somewhat less, I kinda dislike the shifting of spell levels..

like a summoner casting a 9th level spell with a 6th level slot, does that mean a limited wish can now summon a 9th level monster ?

What I like to see most is alternate class abilities or class iconics for certain races and classes, though it will have to be a package deal, unlike what substitution levels did.


I'd like to see a pathfinder bladesinger styled prc....

well you see I prefer melee than ranged warfare....

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / General Discussion / New Prestige Classes please All Messageboards