why do we need all these classes, i beleive a single minor change does not warrant a new base class, nor does "i want to be X prestige class at level 1!", "We need a new hybrid!" or even "We need a ninja for the nippophiles!"
these 4 options are bad base class design material, the 3rd one (we want a new hybrid) is best reserved for PRC's.
Each of the current classes, as currently written, is fun to play.
What a useless statement.
For what its worth, there has been an official ruling on INA for monks, its an official NO for monks in pathfinder. The errata is going to add a line in the feat that says "Imporved Natural Attack cannot be applied to unarmed strikes". See here. However I don't think its as much a needed feat as it was in 3.5. Pathfinder monks ARE better, still need help for sure, but better than 3.5.
Well that sucks. You would think they'd take note that the class needs the help and officially back the generosity.
I've always wanted to do a Capoeira-based "monk" for the Mwangi, especially among escaped and freed slaves. Or a more kickboxing/brawler/pitfighter "monk" for gladiators (both public and underground fight clubs). Both would have notably different styles than the PFRPG monk (Tian Xia & Vudrani).
The Dragon Compendium has the Battle Dancer, which has much more of a Capoeira flavor. And if you slap Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle) on a solid melee'r, you get an unarmed strike that doesn't suck and has half-decent progression (though it takes two feats).
why do we need all these classes, i beleive a single minor change does not warrant a new base class, nor does "i want to be X prestige class at level 1!", "We need a new hybrid!" or even "We need a ninja for the nippophiles!"
these 4 options are bad base class design material, the 3rd one (we want a new hybrid) is best reserved for PRC's.
While I do believe you make a lot of valid points, the only reason I'm quoting you right now is because you used the word "nippophiles" and my sophomoric mind couldn't help but go to a naughty place.
Each of the current classes, as currently written, is fun to play.What a useless statement.
It wasn't useless. It likely allowed you to smugly make a backhanded comment. I'd say that's pretty useful... to someone... for reasons I'm not qualified to give... because I don't have the requisite degree...
Each of the current classes, as currently written, is fun to play.What a useless statement.
What an even more useless reply.
|
why do we need all these classes, i beleive a single minor change does not warrant a new base class, nor does "i want to be X prestige class at level 1!", "We need a new hybrid!" or even "We need a ninja for the nippophiles!"
these 4 options are bad base class design material, the 3rd one (we want a new hybrid) is best reserved for PRC's.
I agree with you 100%. The new base classes just seem to be prestige classes with 20 levels. No idea why they are needed. It seems to me a PrC would be the best way adjust flavor of a base class and to add new options.
Yet for some reason the PrC concept is out of favor and replaced by base classes. No idea why really.
As to the original topic, I expect to see the 6 new base classes of course, new options for the core classes, new feats and spells. Nothing radical or earth shattering, but useful. I do doubt there will be any PrCs but maybe I am wrong.
Oh the irony continues in a neverending lol!What an even more useless reply.Each of the current classes, as currently written, is fun to play.What a useless statement.
Keeping the tradition alive.
I agree with you 100%. The new base classes just seem to be prestige classes with 20 levels. No idea why they are needed. It seems to me a PrC would be the best way adjust flavor of a base class and to add new options.
Yet for some reason the PrC concept is out of favor and replaced by base classes. No idea why really.
Except the PrC model is absolutely horrible for making character concepts work. Especially hybrid concepts. Either you're not allowed to actually have your character concept represented at all until sixth level (which some campaigns might not even reach), or you're required to suck from levels one to six, and then play catch-up the rest of your career (Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster).
Except the PrC model is absolutely horrible for making character concepts work. Especially hybrid concepts. Either you're not allowed to actually have your character concept represented at all until sixth level (which some campaigns might not even reach), or you're required to suck from levels one to six, and then play catch-up the rest of your career (Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster).I agree with you 100%. The new base classes just seem to be prestige classes with 20 levels. No idea why they are needed. It seems to me a PrC would be the best way adjust flavor of a base class and to add new options.
Yet for some reason the PrC concept is out of favor and replaced by base classes. No idea why really.
Wow, for once I actually agree with VV. Prestige classes suck when you are trying to do something combining 2 class abilities. You never get what you want until you have slogged through at least 5 levels of suck. They work fine for higher level alternate abilities though, like many people seem to want with the fighter.
It's suprising how often rules arguments come down to 'wait, the last line of that spell description says WHAT? How'd I miss that for the last few years??'
Yeah, I kinda do agree with VV there too. I am not a PrC fan.
Actually, rather than even using PrCs, I've been known to work with the players/DM to homebrew a single base class with the kinds of abilities the fusion would have, spaced out across twenty levels. So, if someone wanted a Barbarian/Dervish, we may work together to make a unified 20-level Nomad base class that waters down Barbarian abilities while interspersing Dervish abilities along the way.
|
|
I still don't get the complaint about PrCs you guys made. So instead you get a base class and just have to suck for 1-19 levels instead? I'm just curious but does everyone just plat at level 20? Lol
but all is good. I like PrCs and think they enhance play.
Seems to me though the complaint was not against PrCs, but rather against base classes... "you're required to suck from Level 1-6" seems an indictment against base classes, not PrCs.
Next question would be do you think ALL concepts should be playable from level? The ninja that studied for ten years, the samurai who fought for years, or in a modern game should you get to play a Navy SEAL who is 16 years old? Some concepts are Prestigous and it is demeaning to the concept that they are common stock. Sometimes you have to work toward your goal. Should a concept of an all powerful archmage be playable at level 1? Even with base classes the answer is you must suck for a while before you can play a god.
But that is the way I play. I don't usually start my games at level 20
:-)
and guys take this with the HUMOR it was intended with net posting hides the humor too often.
|
|
Actually, rather than even using PrCs, I've been known to work with the players/DM to homebrew a single base class with the kinds of abilities the fusion would have, spaced out across twenty levels. So, if someone wanted a Barbarian/Dervish, we may work together to make a unified 20-level Nomad base class that waters down Barbarian abilities while interspersing Dervish abilities along the way.
THAT is a cool way of doing it.
I don't have an issue with PrC's. My only issue was the lack of quality ones. Many were not worth playing, others to good to be true, and only a few were well rounded.
Actually, rather than even using PrCs, I've been known to work with the players/DM to homebrew a single base class with the kinds of abilities the fusion would have, spaced out across twenty levels. So, if someone wanted a Barbarian/Dervish, we may work together to make a unified 20-level Nomad base class that waters down Barbarian abilities while interspersing Dervish abilities along the way.THAT is a cool way of doing it.
When I first heard of Paizo's Pathfinder project, I was very hopeful that they would see the light and ditch the idea of prestige classes altogether, and perhaps take one of the few very good ideas that came alive in 2nd edition and use "Class Kit's" instead.
Those were just sets of alternate class abilities that were very nice for customizing a base class to play with a certain theme, without all the complications of PrCs.
Perhaps it's an idea worth revisiting.
Actually, rather than even using PrCs, I've been known to work with the players/DM to homebrew a single base class with the kinds of abilities the fusion would have, spaced out across twenty levels. So, if someone wanted a Barbarian/Dervish, we may work together to make a unified 20-level Nomad base class that waters down Barbarian abilities while interspersing Dervish abilities along the way.THAT is a cool way of doing it.
This is my approach also.
I cannot stand PrCs. I believe that nothing takes fun out of roleplaying and character building as fast as pre-requisites — a philosophy I extend to feats. In my games, only BAB, ability score, and Caster/Class Level specific pre-reqs apply. Everything else can be gotten on an approval basis.
Next question would be do you think ALL concepts should be playable from level? The ninja that studied for ten years, the samurai who fought for years, or in a modern game should you get to play a Navy SEAL who is 16 years old? Some concepts are Prestigous and it is demeaning to the concept that they are common stock. Sometimes you have to work toward your goal. Should a concept of an all powerful archmage be playable at level 1? Even with base classes the answer is you must suck for a while before you can play a god.
Time and level have nothing to do with one another. A samurai at level 1 and a Navy SEAL at age 16 are completely incomparable.
That said? Most fundamental concepts should be playable from level 1. This is distinct from the notion that every character of every breed and every organization should be playable from level 1.
You should be able to play a samurai from level 1. That does not necessarily mean you should be able to play Lord Minashi, General of the Order of the Badass Dragon at level 1.
You should be able to play a ninja from level 1. That does not mean you should be able to be a member of the legendary Circle of the Unseen Blade at level 1.
At the same time, mind that even at level 1, a character can and should be of heroic stature and ability, and it is perfectly legitimate for them to be more impressive than just Militiaman Bob. In fact, depending on the world and the framework of the game, a level 1 or level 2 PC could well be a very talented and powerful individual capable of holding a position of significance within some of the most powerful organizations in the world.
My problem with PrCs is that they're a clunky, clumsy tool. If you're relying on a PrC to get an ability that's basic to your character concept, that means that you're lacking a very basic element of your character for the first five levels of your career, and then suddenly wake up one morning with that one ability you lean on for the rest of your life. Taking the Dervish example? Dervishes get the ability to treat scimitars as light weapons. If you want a character who is the traditional dual-scimitar desert warrior, you have to either eat massive extra penalties and spend the first six levels sucking or wait until... probably even after level 6 (Dervish has some harsh prereqs) just to learn your most basic fighting style. It's the kind of ability the character should have access to very early, if not from level one.
THAT is a cool way of doing it.
Thank you. It takes a bit of finesse to pull off, but I've quite liked the results.
When I first heard of Paizo's Pathfinder project, I was very hopeful that they would see the light and ditch the idea of prestige classes altogether, and perhaps take one of the few very good ideas that came alive in 2nd edition and use "Class Kit's" instead.
Those were just sets of alternate class abilities that were very nice for customizing a base class to play with a certain theme, without all the complications of PrCs.
I quite like the 4e idea of paragon paths, though the exact details don't particularly appeal to me. Slapping a set of particularly appropriate abilities on top of the standard base class for a more fitting character is a fairly manageable concept.
I'm also quite fond of 3.5's alternate class features, though I find that's a concept they never quite took far enough for my tastes.
Actually, rather than even using PrCs, I've been known to work with the players/DM to homebrew a single base class with the kinds of abilities the fusion would have, spaced out across twenty levels. So, if someone wanted a Barbarian/Dervish, we may work together to make a unified 20-level Nomad base class that waters down Barbarian abilities while interspersing Dervish abilities along the way.THAT is a cool way of doing it.
Indeed. The first time I read through the original 3e DMG, it suggested swapping abilities and using PrCs for flavour in your campaign.
I don't think I ever really changed from that approach, even after the glut of crunch and change in philosophy when they found out PrCs can sell books.
In my most recent game, I've done exactly the same thing, only with a partial gestalt to cover the loss of a 4th player.
.
And it seems that Loopy got his wish...
others end in delightful non sequiteur (my favorite).
That's... two now, I think. Right?
Anyway, prestige classes. Prestige classes are good for concepts that kick in at higher levels. Griffon rider, master of shapeshifting, planar traveler... these are good prestige classes. Prestige classes are bad for core concepts that you should have from the beginning of your career. Dagger-user, fire mage, and hybrid classes... these are bad PrCs.Mostly agree with VV and MiB. I tend to think PrC's would be better (enter houserule, so now we have 3...):
If PrC's were quicker to get into, or only had skill/feat requirements (lvl3 or 4 would be better, IMO)
If PrC's were shorter (5 levels) and gave straight abilities (rather than abilities keyed to PrC class levels)
If PrC's forbade multiclassing until you finished the PrC. Nobody can take a dip, if you really want to start one, you have to finish. I think that and shorter classes are a good trade for earlier entry.
The thing I have with PrC is either they are alternate progressions, like partial alternate casters, or they get some unique ability. 90% of those unique abilities can be handled with proper feat chains/core class abilites. This is especially true now that the rogue and barbarian have nice lists of unique skills to chose from. I don't think I've seen a single non-caster rogue build with something that can't be made into a trait, and most fighter PrC have some capstone that could be made into a high level feat.
I don't like using PrC to add alternate abilities because I would rather see those abilities added to a base class as options to take.
The company is making this new Splatbook/Edition/Content etc JUST TO MAKE MONEY! (duh!)
But gaming companies should be like charities that go through all that work and spend all that money just to give us free entertainment. :P
|
Simple fix... yes... good fix... no. I do think something might need to be done. But remember that monk weapons can be enchanted and have all that goodness added to them. I do think that perhaps a flat level based bonus damage might be in order.
Simple Monk fix - add Monk unarmed strike damage to Monk weapons.
Wasn't that how it worked in 1st edition? +1/2 Monk level to weapon damage with monk weapons?
Or am I just making that up? :)
But gaming companies should be like charities that go through all that work and spend all that money just to give us free entertainment. :PThe company is making this new Splatbook/Edition/Content etc JUST TO MAKE MONEY! (duh!)
Wait ... don't they actually do that? Oo
|
|
If PrC's were quicker to get into, or only had skill/feat requirements (lvl3 or 4 would be better, IMO)
If PrC's were shorter (5 levels) and gave straight abilities (rather than abilities keyed to PrC class levels)
Oh, as someone who *loathes* 10 level long PrCs, that have seven levels of 'advance previous class abilities' and three good things scattered amongst the dross, I'd be thrilled if three level long PrCs were the standard, not the exception, with the occasional shocking diversions into 1 and 2 level PrCs (representing special training and more of an Alternate Class level), and PrCs as long as (gasp) five whole levels long.
14 level PrCs, like the True Necromancer, just make my eye twitch.
[rant] Note to those designing a PrC, if level 3 of your PrC advances the previous classes spellcasting, or advances Monk abilities, or adds a die of Sneak Attack, freaking NUKE that level and tighten up the class. Why the heck would I want a PrC level that advances my Wizardly spellcasting, when I could just take a level of Wizard instead? It's worse than a 'Feat Tax,' it's a 'Level Tax!' Do something *new* with that level, or shoot it in the head! [/endrant]
That's an interesting idea, Set. If the level does not serve the class, zap it and be done with it :)
Oh, as someone who *loathes* 10 level long PrCs, that have seven levels of 'advance previous class abilities' and three good things scattered amongst the dross, I'd be thrilled if three level long PrCs were the standard, not the exception, with the occasional shocking diversions into 1 and 2 level PrCs (representing special training and more of an Alternate Class level), and PrCs as long as (gasp) five whole levels long.
14 level PrCs, like the True Necromancer, just make my eye twitch.
[rant] Note to those designing a PrC, if level 3 of your PrC advances the previous classes spellcasting, or advances Monk abilities, or adds a die of Sneak Attack, freaking NUKE that level and tighten up the class. Why the heck would I want a PrC level that advances my Wizardly spellcasting, when I could just take a level of Wizard instead? It's worse than a 'Feat Tax,' it's a 'Level Tax!' Do something *new* with that level, or shoot it in the head! [/endrant]
You've essentially hit the nail on the head, IMHO.
prcs should be about 3-5 levels. and should have thier prerequissites lowered. some of them should be kits. others should be alternate class features/weapon groupings. some should just be feats. prestige classes may be fine advancing other class features, if they give something unique on that same level as well.
Anyway, prestige classes. Prestige classes are good for concepts that kick in at higher levels. Griffon rider, master of shapeshifting, planar traveler... these are good prestige classes. Prestige classes are bad for core concepts that you should have from the beginning of your career. Dagger-user, fire mage, and hybrid classes... these are bad PrCs.
I agree completely.
...delays, delays...