Every time I see a thread where a bunch of people b~%!@ about a class, I want to play one out of spite! STOP IT! I rarely get to actually play and I can really only have one D&D character at a time!
Well, at least I won't have to worry about playing a Wizard.
Every time I see a thread where a bunch of people b!&*& about a class, I want to play one out of spite! STOP IT! I rarely get to actually play and I can really only have one D&D character at a time!
Well, at least I won't have to worry about playing a Wizard.
Wizards are gods. Just don't waste your time with direct single-target damage spells with a few more d6s tacked on, or diluting them by multiclassing. Whatever else your character is capable of pales in comparison to the sheer godhood of focused single-classed spellcasters.
You're there to win fights, not roleplay some fantasy person! XD
Whatever the AT may be able to do, a caster of the same level can use his magic to do it better. All day, every time. No exceptions.
Let's go with some sample human lvl 10 builds using the elite array
Bard
Str-14 (13+1)
Dex-14
Con-12
Int-10
Wis-8
Cha-16 (15+1)
BAB +7
HP-69 (assumes HP bonus every level)
Fort +4
Reflex +8
Will +5
Skills 70 ranks
3rd level Bard Spells
Bard Abilities
Rogue
Str-14
Dex-16 (15+1)
Con-14 (13+1)
Int-12
Wis-8
Cha-10
BAB +7
HP-79 (assumes HP bonus)
Fort +5
Reflex +9
Will +2
Skills 100 ranks
Thief Abilities
+5d6 sneak attack
Rogue 3/Wizard 3/Trickster 4
Str-14 (13+1)
Dex-14
Con-12
Int-16 (15+1)
Wis-8
Cha-10
BAB +5
HP-62 (Assumes HP Bonus)
Fort +5
Reflex +8
Will +5
Skills 76 ranks
Sneak Attack +4d6
Thief Abilities
4th level Wizard Spells
I'm assuming that a trickster would be able to match ACs with the bard and rogues mithral chain shirts at least situationally so AC isn't that much of a factor.
The rogue has an achilles heel in his will save but with weapon finesse + sneak attack + thief abilities he is definitely the hardest hitting. He also is the most durable in terms of absorbing damage. Skill use is more than adequate. No ability to self-buff without using UMD.
The bard hits more often but doesn't hit as hard as the other two. Skill use with bardic knowledge and versatile performance is definitely more than adequate. Good ability to buff self and party.
Trickster can hit hard but hits less than others except when using touch spells. Less durable than the other two. Skill use is good. Spell use is good- good ability to buff self and party.
I'm just not sure that the relatively decent performance of a rogue 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 10 is worth the pain of being a rogue 3/wizard 3/Trickster 1.
If you know that you are going to levels 15+ in a campaign then I think the trickster can be worthwhile but if you typically stop at 8-10 I'm not sure the trickster is worth the effort.
I do think that in a 2-3 man party the trickster build is probably a decent choice but I'd really only be tempted to take it in a 5-6 man party where it can pair up with another striker build (like another rogue). Even then Bard is probably a superior fifth man.
|
My questions is which of those skill related things wouldn't be done just as well with a straight rogue or straight bard? I am not 100% charop, but if a class isn't solid in combat it needs to have some kind of edge out of combat and I'm not seeing it. The rogue and the bard are effective in combat and just as effective as the Trickster OUT of combat, that is my issue.Are you saying that the trickster has issues in combat? I haven't had that problem with them, any more than I've had similar issues with rogues. Could you elaborate?
Have you played the class all the way through or just made an arbitrary build like the one above? Because when they have the biggest issues are Character levels 4-9, They still have the sneak attack of the second level rogue and spellcasting is wizard/ sorcerer 3-5. No improved invisibility means sneak attacking with spells is touch attacks only (no ranged). Outside these 4-5 levels where you are horrible you certainly catch up on damage output but you never surpass the other classes.
So I guess the question is whether you are going to have to play through this or just start play at a level where the class is acceptable. What's worse is your character is mediocre when everyone else's characters are just getting awesome. Also, depends on how high your group is going to play to. Many groups drop off or reboot by 10th-12 level so a huge portion of your playing is in weakville. If you were the BAMF when you came out then it might be worth it but you aren't, you are doing the same damage as the ranger or the straight evoker.
I'm curious to know what other people have done with the class. Is it underpowered? Does the trickster have any good tricks? Tell us about the one in your game.
Race, class, feats, level, etc. How does it do?
Right now, we've build one as cohort. It's Human, 10th level, mixed Rogue, Sorcerer, Spellwarp Sniper and Arcane Trickster. We'll see how it plays this Sunday. ;)
If you are going to do that, go all out.
I have a build for a Warmage/Rogue/Spellthief/Spellwarp Sniper/Arcane Trickster. Of course you won't be getting Arcane Trickster until much past 10 because Spellwarp Sniper is much more important.
When I've looked at Arcane Trickster, it seems to be for someone who wants a wizard that makes sneak attacks with rays and other spells. What I want instead is a more magical rogue than taking the minor and major arcana rogue talents. A rogue who can self-buff without spending all his gold on wands the wizard can't/won't make for him (if they're even available) or waiting 3 rounds while that same wizard buffs himself before doing anything for the other party members.
Because I'm not trying to compete with the wizard, I'd even be prepared to drop a few caster levels to increase the BAB and add back a few rogue talents, or at least have your AT levels count as rogue levels for choosing Advanced Talents.
|
|
When I've looked at Arcane Trickster, it seems to be for someone who wants a wizard that makes sneak attacks with rays and other spells. What I want instead is a more magical rogue than taking the minor and major arcana rogue talents. A rogue who can self-buff without spending all his gold on wands the wizard can't/won't make for him (if they're even available) or waiting 3 rounds while that same wizard buffs himself before doing anything for the other party members.
Because I'm not trying to compete with the wizard, I'd even be prepared to drop a few caster levels to increase the BAB and add back a few rogue talents, or at least have your AT levels count as rogue levels for choosing Advanced Talents.
The trickster can be this guy, and in fairness I'm probably trashing him a bit much... The biggest problem with the trickster is the 4-5 levels of being mediocre (bad) you have to deal with. My perspective is skewed since I'm right in the middle of that now :)
Every time I see a thread where a bunch of people b%**@ about a class, I want to play one out of spite! STOP IT! I rarely get to actually play and I can really only have one D&D character at a time!I thought it made you post a useless and contradictory post that contributes nothing to the conversation.
No, your existence makes me do that.
I mean, first off that's very smart to get rid of the worst of the problem (spell level losses); but there is a tradeoff on that as well... a Wiz 4 / Rog 1 / Assassin 1 / Arcane Trickster 1 has a whopping bab of +2 at 7th level. Good luck hitting even touch attack....
Well, fractional BAB helps that problem if you use it (a BAB of +4).
But, no, I'm not actually suggesting the build, at least not for PCs.
|
No, your existence makes me do that.Every time I see a thread where a bunch of people b%**@ about a class, I want to play one out of spite! STOP IT! I rarely get to actually play and I can really only have one D&D character at a time!I thought it made you post a useless and contradictory post that contributes nothing to the conversation.
Unseen Seers do the job better than arcane tricksters. immunity to divination spells is a good thing. as well as bonuses to divination spells and the ability to cherry pick divinations from any spell list at the most beneficial level. and i think thier spells are both autosilenced and autostilled, thus denying spellcraft checks, until it's too late.
Unseen Seers do the job better than arcane tricksters. immunity to divination spells is a good thing. as well as bonuses to divination spells and the ability to cherry pick divinations from any spell list at the most beneficial level. and i think thier spells are both autosilenced and autostilled, thus denying spellcraft checks, until it's too late.
However, they are not pathfinder core, and this argument is like saying, "Pathfinder fighters still stink because the Tome of Nine Swords exists."
Also:
We aren't talking about the unseen seer or the arcane trickster in comparison to other such prestige classes -- we are talking about how the pathfinder arcane trickster works out on its own.
Unseen Seers do the job better than arcane tricksters. immunity to divination spells is a good thing. as well as bonuses to divination spells and the ability to cherry pick divinations from any spell list at the most beneficial level. and i think thier spells are both autosilenced and autostilled, thus denying spellcraft checks, until it's too late.However, they are not pathfinder core, and this argument is like saying, "Pathfinder fighters still stink because the Tome of Nine Swords exists."
Also:
We aren't talking about the unseen seer or the arcane trickster in comparison to other such prestige classes -- we are talking about how the pathfinder arcane trickster works out on its own.
sorry. none of the pathfinder PRCs work on thier own, unless you adapt some 3.5 PRCs. some combinations need those 3.5 PRCs. one guy mentioned spellwarp sniper. so what's wrong with unseen seer?
See I think all the PrC's for pathfinder except the pathfinder chronicler and possibly the Assassin work just fine as is.
See I think all the PrC's for pathfinder except the pathfinder chronicler and possibly the Assassin work just fine as is.Ha! I think assassin is fine but most of the casting related ones have problems :)
Only if you are trying to play the prestige class as if it is a level 20 wizard.
Arcane tricksters can do plenty without relying on magic, before entering the class, and many of those same tricks continue to work without magic even when you have it.
EK turns the wizard from a 20 level wizard, to a 19 level wizard with d8 hit dice and medium BAB, with a couple of extra feats to boot.
DD turns the bard into more of a frontliner, and for the flavor is nice on a sorcerer. Again it tends to turn the sorcerer into a d8 creature with *almost* medium BAB... but I know several players that take it just to get the bloodline stuff earlier... Which is mainly what it does.
AA is the odd man out really, but it does extend range and save on the GP... you just have to be clear that you are trading in levels for cheaper equipment, and have a willingness to focus less on the spell casting and more on the archery.
Loremaster is on a technical level OP. Five feat equivlents, full spell casting, Lore, more skill points, and other abilities, is more than you "give up" especially since what is "given up" (aka the feats) are stuff you probably would have taken anyways (with the exception of the skill focus).
Mystic Theurge is the hardest to work with... but proper choosing of spells and careful usage means you'll always have an answer... if not the one people were expecting. In a lot of ways it's the extreme sorcerer challenge.
|
|
The issue with most of these classes is not so much what it looks like at the end but generally at the beginning. Arcane trickster and Mystic Theurge in particular require a combination of things which mean you are particularly weak when you enter the class and for the first few levels.
Take those same prestige classes at 3-4th level into the class and they are much more reasonable.
Edit: the other issue you've touched on, they are very fiddly classes. It's a lot easier to screw up and wind up with a weak character.
|
Pathfinder only adapted base book, non-racial PRCs, and added in one awful one to flavor the campaign world. I doubt it ever makes a PRC again; and good riddance. The ones in 3.5, especially those from the 2nd set of splat books, were redic. And characters that were 15th level and had 10 classes were just plain silly.
I love Pathfinder's focus; I love the new classes. I am sure one day there will be a spellthief / beguiler base class that will put all of this to shame. Meanwhile we work with what we have; an in this case, what we have is pretty darn awful.
For my groups the lower levels of AT haven't been bad. However generally it's rogue 1~3 then the spell casting. It generally runs as a rogue until the AT opens up more, and depending on the specialization you can really buff up the rogues generally strong suits:
Divination is an easy one to see, as it gives an Initiative boost, and free action on the surprise round (if there is one).
Evocation -- Yuck, but hey, you got a decent default attack until you get up to scorching ray.
Necromancy -- Another use of Chill touch? Hey I'll take that... the commanding undead isn't so useful, but there are plenty of good rays to use at least.
Conjuration -- Again several good rays and mage armor is useful at low levels.
Abjuration -- A little help on those traps you fail to detect... not a great choice though.
I generally take the familiar, and half elf is a solid choice too. Familiars boost that perception check (alertness for free) and can help with your AC, or skill check on their own too (aid other) which can be nice.
Grease is a regular first level spell for our locals too since the balancing causes you to lose your dex bonus to AC. Reduce person can help on your own dex and AC too.
Also wizard's need for Int helps you keep a nice amount of skill points coming in too.
Usually we don't play the AT to be a wizard -- we play it to be a rogue with new tricks.
The trickster can be this guy, and in fairness I'm probably trashing him a bit much...
Well, the poor BAB and the d6 hit die are what tells me this is a wizard who sneak attacks with rays from range rather than a rogue who self-buffs and tumbles into melee looking for that flank.
|
|
Pathfinder only adapted base book, non-racial PRCs, and added in one awful one to flavor the campaign world. I doubt it ever makes a PRC again; and good riddance. The ones in 3.5, especially those from the 2nd set of splat books, were redic. And characters that were 15th level and had 10 classes were just plain silly.
I love Pathfinder's focus; I love the new classes. I am sure one day there will be a spellthief / beguiler base class that will put all of this to shame. Meanwhile we work with what we have; an in this case, what we have is pretty darn awful.
Paizo will continue making PrCs, only they will focus primarily on Golarion specific PrCs that are tied to organizations and roles in the campaign world.
The trickster can be this guy, and in fairness I'm probably trashing him a bit much...Well, the poor BAB and the d6 hit die are what tells me this is a wizard who sneak attacks with rays from range rather than a rogue who self-buffs and tumbles into melee looking for that flank.
That's why I petitioned (to no avail) for the rogue BAB. Not a big help, but it compensates for the 4th-7th levels of suck. At least a bard-rogue doesn't lose (much) BAB (I play it with fractional BAB, so no loss in my games), and a wiz/sor-rogue gets a little spiff for those touch attack spells after missing so often at low levels, after taking the class 3 or 4 levels.
You could also allow evasion, not 2d6 sneak attack, as the prereq. Now you can try it with the monk, too, and only lose 2 caster levels, like the EK. The monk/caster variant gives great base saves, and the ability to cast spells using unarmed attacks. The utility is iffy, depending, but you're rarely completely helpless. I'm not sure how sneak attack works with flurry of blows, but if you can sneak attack with "flame arrow" enchanted shurikens, you could lay down some good hurt. =)
Perhaps both would be too good. I'd at least want the medium BAB, especially for bard-rogue types. They don't have good blasty spells, so they have to rely on weapons or wands to do the sneak-attack job. Bard-rogues in this PrC have mad skillz, though. You'll want a good int. score to take advantage of that, and use some good light armor, since you can cast with it, no problem.
Just thinking out loud. The armorless full-casters would take different tacks.
More thoughts. If you take wizard or arcane sorcerer, take a ring as your bonded object, and make it a ring of invisibility ASAP; 9th or 10th level. You can add protection as you can afford it, too, or whatever else you want from a ring (wizardry?). They're harder to lose than most objects.
Of course, if you're captured, you lose all your goodies. That's why you take spell mastery once you can cast teleport or d-door. Unless you're held in an anti-magic zone, you have a way to get back to your friends. Take eschew materials, early on. Gaseous form is another one you should always be able to cast. It works on enemies, too, for 2 minutes per level. No save, no SR. They turn into slow-moving clouds while you make your escape.
The rules for god-wizard don't apply to the AT, who clearly isn't a god-wizard. He casts grease on targets he wants to off, next round. Let the full-casters burn their high-level spells. You want to do full-party buffs and position yourself to sneak attack damage spells on important targets.
Acid arrow is great for damaging enemy casters, and forcing concentration checks for the next round or two. Get a wand for that, if you don't want to memorize it.
On your own, you can go into the heart of the enemy's castle and get out alive. Let the wizard try that.
PrCs complement parties in their own ways. Small parties benefit best from multiclassing, but smart players can always do something. A Pathfinder Chronicler (universally criticized) can mesh nicely with the right group. The real value of a character is what the player can do with it in a round. The AT has options.
You guys are classy gents.No, your existence makes me do that.Every time I see a thread where a bunch of people b%**@ about a class, I want to play one out of spite! STOP IT! I rarely get to actually play and I can really only have one D&D character at a time!I thought it made you post a useless and contradictory post that contributes nothing to the conversation.
Hehe. <3 PA. Who's going to PAX East?
See I think all the PrC's for pathfinder except the pathfinder chronicler and possibly the Assassin work just fine as is.Ha! I think assassin is fine but most of the casting related ones have problems :)Only if you are trying to play the prestige class as if it is a level 20 wizard.
Arcane tricksters can do plenty without relying on magic, before entering the class, and many of those same tricks continue to work without magic even when you have it.
EK turns the wizard from a 20 level wizard, to a 19 level wizard with d8 hit dice and medium BAB, with a couple of extra feats to boot.
DD turns the bard into more of a frontliner, and for the flavor is nice on a sorcerer. Again it tends to turn the sorcerer into a d8 creature with *almost* medium BAB... but I know several players that take it just to get the bloodline stuff earlier... Which is mainly what it does.
AA is the odd man out really, but it does extend range and save on the GP... you just have to be clear that you are trading in levels for cheaper equipment, and have a willingness to focus less on the spell casting and more on the archery.
Loremaster is on a technical level OP. Five feat equivlents, full spell casting, Lore, more skill points, and other abilities, is more than you "give up" especially since what is "given up" (aka the feats) are stuff you probably would have taken anyways (with the exception of the skill focus).
Mystic Theurge is the hardest to work with... but proper choosing of spells and careful usage means you'll always have an answer... if not the one people were expecting. In a lot of ways it's the extreme sorcerer challenge.
The PrCs were bad in 3.5 and they are worse in Pathfinder. The only ones worthwhile are the ones that actually got work overs - the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.
The PrCs were bad in 3.5 and they are worse in Pathfinder. The only ones worthwhile are the ones that actually got work overs - the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.
Back it up with actual numbers, you can state that all you want but you haven't proven it.
Back it up with actual numbers, you can state that all you want but you haven't proven it.
The PrCs were bad in 3.5 and they are worse in Pathfinder. The only ones worthwhile are the ones that actually got work overs - the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.
Stating their theoretical capability at level 20 proves nothing.
Stating their theoretical capability at level 20 proves nothing.Back it up with actual numbers, you can state that all you want but you haven't proven it.
The PrCs were bad in 3.5 and they are worse in Pathfinder. The only ones worthwhile are the ones that actually got work overs - the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.
Stating that the classes are actually worse than they were in 3.5 proves nothing.
You got nothing and know you are wrong and therefore are trying to side step attempts to make you prove your false statement.
Stating that the classes are actually worse than they were in 3.5 proves nothing.Stating their theoretical capability at level 20 proves nothing.Back it up with actual numbers, you can state that all you want but you haven't proven it.
The PrCs were bad in 3.5 and they are worse in Pathfinder. The only ones worthwhile are the ones that actually got work overs - the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.
They are in comparison by the simple fact that base classes have been improved significantly and in such a way so as to continue taking them is far more beneficial than branching out.
|
Stating that the classes are actually worse than they were in 3.5 proves nothing.Stating their theoretical capability at level 20 proves nothing.Back it up with actual numbers, you can state that all you want but you haven't proven it.
The PrCs were bad in 3.5 and they are worse in Pathfinder. The only ones worthwhile are the ones that actually got work overs - the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.They are in comparison by the simple fact that base classes have been improved significantly and in such a way so as to continue taking them is far more beneficial than branching out.
(this looks like fun)
So your OPINION is that the base classes have been improved in such a way that staying single-classed is better than branching out. Still not a fact. A fact is, by definition, something that is known to exist or that has happened. Facts in a scientific manner are proven through various means. Prove that your opinion is a fact.
I ran a gnome illusionist 3/rogue 3/AT 7 as an encounter for a tenth level party of 8 people. It was an underground sewer and the only known entrance was collapsed. He had Imp Invis on himself and an Invisible Stalker with 3 assassin levels via planar ally. The inquisitor failed his death save by 2 and lamented on how he failed to cast see invis beforehand. A phantasmal killer took out the dwarven ranger, but the fey sorc made short work of inviso assass via greater command (the "stay" option). A rock to mud on the ceiling locked down the party and the follow up black tentacles almost took the party out. The AT's hide check combined with invis meant that only the inquisitor (who got breath of lifed the next round) could find him. Rock to mud made everyone's movement 5' so that definetly made things difficult for the players. As you can see, he didn't need 7th level spells to be a party killer. Sniping from cover with summoned monsters and illusions to confound things. I could've made a 13th level wizard, but found the AT a more interesting option and I'm glad I did. I actually want to run another AT against the party. It was fun and frustrating all at the same time. I highly recomend AT villains.
And that is how the AT worked out for me.
|
|
Nothing you did wouldn't havebeen more effective with a wizard 13 who Maxed stealth and had a cat (I believe?) familiar.
With all of that said, I often muticlass NPCs; but remember they are often solo monsters, so need to "fill" many roles. Also, it prevents BABs/level of spells from getting out of hand (as in this case where you may not have wanted the party to face 7th level spells).
I tried playing one in a resent camp. The class takes forever to get to and suffers from multi classing. but all the prestige classes like it do. I love the capstone ability, and it works great with a sneaky group, but if you have one paladin don't pick it up.
I think you need the 3.5 bandaids for prestige classes to make an arcane trickster work (orb spells, Practiced Spellcaster, and various splat feats/spells). Back in 3.5 it really wasn't a horrible prestige class. I'd say it was a "base-line" or "mediocre" option but not flatly terrible. Now you *need* those feats just to keep up with PF's power curve. Playing an arcane trickster with PF-only material is probably going to be disaster.
That said, I like PF's Tricky Spells *a lot* -- there's all kinds of sneaky things you can do with that ability.
(this looks like fun)
So your OPINION is that the base classes have been improved in such a way that staying single-classed is better than branching out. Still not a fact. A fact is, by definition, something that is known to exist or that has happened. Facts in a scientific manner are proven through various means. Prove that your opinion is a fact.
Do I get to use implications?
Starting point:- Accepted fact1: higher level casting is better than lower level casting.
- Implication1: Class abilities that improve with level are better at higher levels than at lower levels.
- Accepted fact2: Paizo added abilities that improve with level to the base classes.
- Implication2, from AF2 and I1: All base classes with such abilities added are better at higher levels than lower levels.
- Accepted fact3: Mutliclassing, including prestige classes, stops the progression of class specific abilities except in such cases as the second class explicitly extends the other class' abilities.
- Implication3, from AF3 and I2: Multiclassed characters, including prestige classed characters, are worse at the class abilities of their previous class than characters who staid in the class
- Probably accepted fact1: Paizo did little to adapt the majority of 3.5 Core prestige classes.
- Assertion1: The 3.5 core prestige classes were already hamstringed in their power levels at anything less than perfectly max PrC level.
- Implication4, from PAF1, A1, I3: Unimproved Pathfinder PrCs that are holdovers from 3.5 are worse than they were in 3.5
I4 was also my ORIGINAL assertion that you objected to.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
One option I've been toying with is to have the effects of a spellcaster's existing school/bloodline/domain powers etc. be tied to caster level, rather than class level. Acquisition of new bloodline/school/domain powers would still be tied to class level.
For example, a sorcerer 6 who multiclasses into AT would continue to increase the power of Elemental Ray and Elemental Resistance, but would not gain the Elemental Blast power.
One option I've been toying with is to have the effects of a spellcaster's existing school/bloodline/domain powers etc. be tied to caster level, rather than class level. Acquisition of new bloodline/school/domain powers would still be tied to class level.
For example, a sorcerer 6 who multiclasses into AT would continue to increase the power of Elemental Ray and Elemental Resistance, but would not gain the Elemental Blast power.
Interesting. I've thought of some sort of scaled-down version of that; maybe giving the AT half-progression of sorcerer or wizard school powers, and maybe a rogue talent every 4th level. Same idea, but split, like the class.
A bard combo could rise in bardic special abilities at 1/2 speed, too, and get the 1/2 speed rogue talents.
I doubt Paizo will change anything about the PrCs for a very long time, if ever.
At a minimum, I'd let the AT have the 3/4 BAB in my games. He blasts more than most casters of his level, and may do some flanking if pressed, so he should be a just little better at it than a wiz or sor.
(this looks like fun)
So your OPINION is that the base classes have been improved in such a way that staying single-classed is better than branching out. Still not a fact. A fact is, by definition, something that is known to exist or that has happened. Facts in a scientific manner are proven through various means. Prove that your opinion is a fact.
Do I get to use implications?
Starting point:
- Accepted fact1: higher level casting is better than lower level casting.
- Implication1: Class abilities that improve with level are better at higher levels than at lower levels.
- Accepted fact2: Paizo added abilities that improve with level to the base classes.
- Implication2, from AF2 and I1: All base classes with such abilities added are better at higher levels than lower levels.
- Accepted fact3: Mutliclassing, including prestige classes, stops the progression of class specific abilities except in such cases as the second class explicitly extends the other class' abilities.
- Implication3, from AF3 and I2: Multiclassed characters, including prestige classed characters, are worse at the class abilities of their previous class than characters who staid in the class
- Probably accepted fact1: Paizo did little to adapt the majority of 3.5 Core prestige classes.
- Assertion1: The 3.5 core prestige classes were already hamstringed in their power levels at anything less than perfectly max PrC level.
- Implication4, from PAF1, A1, I3: Unimproved Pathfinder PrCs that are holdovers from 3.5 are worse than they were in 3.5
I4 was also my ORIGINAL assertion that you objected to.
Accepted Fact:
The Paizo Prestige classes are improved over the 3.5 Prestige classes of the same names were.PROOF: (the part you left off)
Arcane Archer gained spell casting
Arcane Trickster gained more uses of 3.5 function, and extra abilities (in fact gains the use of what amounts to two greater meta magic rods at the same time of both still spell and silent spell)
Dragon Disciple gained spell casting, feats, and spell powers.
Eldritch Knight gained a two step increase in HD, two feats, and a capstone power.
Lore Master Gained increase HD.
Duelist Gained more abilities.
Shadow Dancer Gained access to rogue tricks, gains more shadow jump faster, a Better shadow companion, and spell like abilities.
Mystic Theurge gained a better HD, and class abilities, including a capstone.
The only class that might be worse off is the assassin, due to his loss of spells.
Fact: The Paizo take on the prestige classes are easier to get into due to the change in skills and the access to more feats.
PROOF: Paizo took out the half rank progressions, and buying skills and maximum ranks are both cheaper and easier to do. More feats are allowed due to the change from one in 3 to every odd level.
Your original Assertion was that the Paizo prestige classes are actually worse than the original prestige classes of the same name in 3.5. This is not true. They are better mechanically, easier to get into mechanically, and advance better due to the gains they gained with the change over.
Your assertion is false due to the fact that it is demonstrable that the prestige classes in question are better than they were.
Your assertion is false due to the fact that it is demonstrable that the prestige classes in question are better than they were.
Except for the fact that the 3.5 PrCs wern't that good and Paizo improved base classes significantly.
|
|
Right now, we've build one as cohort. It's Human, 10th level, mixed Rogue, Sorcerer, Spellwarp Sniper and Arcane Trickster. We'll see how it plays this Sunday. ;)
If you are going to do that, go all out.
I have a build for a Warmage/Rogue/Spellthief/Spellwarp Sniper/Arcane Trickster. Of course you won't be getting Arcane Trickster until much past 10 because Spellwarp Sniper is much more important.
Warmage's spell list is too limited and I've already played one before. What's the Spellthief part for?
Your assertion is false due to the fact that it is demonstrable that the prestige classes in question are better than they were.Except for the fact that the 3.5 PrCs wern't that good and Paizo improved base classes significantly.
True. The problem remains going through levels of suck.
IMHO, you pay for that, big time. The AT is not a god-wizard. He's an opportunist, like a rogue, and a caster like a bard. If you have a full caster in the party, you don't compete. You're not the go-to guy for powerful spells. You're just useful. You buff the party while Max Caster does his thing. You follow up with sneak attack spells on mooks or even on the BBEG.
You also make a great scout. In most parties, you can go up ahead as well as a typical rogue. This class relies on invisibility and solid stealth, all the time.
EK turns the wizard from a 20 level wizard, to a 19 level wizard with d8 hit dice and medium BAB, with a couple of extra feats to boot.
For someone who rants about a lack of hard numbers later in the thread, you seem to have some trouble with them. You need a level in an all-martial-weapons class to qualify for EK, and then you don't get any spellcasting the first level of EK. An EK is accordingly always two levels of spellcasting behind a wizard, maxing out at 18. And Ftr 1/Wiz9/EK10 comes out one feat ahead of the straight wizard, not "a couple".
And while you do eventually catch up into something viable, the EK clearly is behind the curve at level 7. A bard out-spells you (4/3/1 vs. 3/2/1), out-BABs you (+5 vs. +4), out-HPs you (35 average, vs. either 33 or 31 average), out-skills you (6 vs. 2), ties you on saves (+1/+4/+4, vs. +4/+1/+4), and can cast without failure in light armor (unlike you).
Right now, we've build one as cohort. It's Human, 10th level, mixed Rogue, Sorcerer, Spellwarp Sniper and Arcane Trickster. We'll see how it plays this Sunday. ;)
If you are going to do that, go all out.
I have a build for a Warmage/Rogue/Spellthief/Spellwarp Sniper/Arcane Trickster. Of course you won't be getting Arcane Trickster until much past 10 because Spellwarp Sniper is much more important.Warmage's spell list is too limited and I've already played one before. What's the Spellthief part for?
Warmage's spell list is better suited for the class' purpose. Spellthief is to (a) get Spellthief abilities and (b) qualify for Arcane Trickster with only two levels instead of 3.
Arcane trickster just doesn't do what I want a Wizard/Rogue to do. If you're looking for a guy who sneak attacks with Ray spells, I suppose it's ok, but it isn't the subtle blent of sneakery & magic I'd want. Even a bard comes closer.
I just wish Pathfinder had something closer to the Beguiler. I was rather fond of the theme-focused spontaneous casters, the Warmage, Healer, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer, and I'm dissapointed that there aren't any Pathfinder classes in the same mold, yet.