For me, a good prestige class is that special combination of setting specific background and a previously unfilled rules niche.
When a PrC is just an excuse for a collection of class abilities with no background at all, or just a PrC based on a background with no innovative mechanics, I feel it is a waste of time.
Background is important to me because Pre-Requisites tend to destroy character development if they aren't spot-on. The stronger the background concept, the better the pre-requisites are (usually) and the easier it is for both player and GM to set the direction toward the PrC early on.
However, a PrC that is just a class because someone thought a specific organization deserved its own class... really what is the point? If you can achieve an organization through base classes, you should. Only when an organization is well known for a special power or secret knowledge does it become necessary to consider a PrC. Personally, I'll offer the Pathfinder Chronicler as a class I never felt a need for.
My own personal favorite PrC was the Red Wizard of Thay from Forgotten Realms. They had a rich background in the setting, but also a unique style of super-specialization that was perfect for a PrC.
Anyway, what makes a good prestige class in your opinion?
The base classes used to be so boring that the PrC was the flavor. Why be a boring Cleric for 20 levels when all you got was your crappy turning ability got better (or I should say didn't get worse). Why stay Sorcerer when all you get was a familiar that advanced. One of the things that made the Monk and Rogue desirable classes was that you kept getting new abilities unlike most classes. PrC were those new abilities.
Now in PF, all of the classes get new abilities as they level up and you get to pick those early on. It eliminates much of the need for PrCs. Now they can be prestigious as opposed to something you had to do to add flavor and abilities to your character.
As for the question...I don't really know what makes a good PrC now. I haven't really had the desire to go after one yet.
EDIT: And pick up your old 3.0 book and leaf through the classes. You want to talk about abilities that are few and far between. Yikes!
As far as I figure, a good prestige class should do something not effectively possible with any core classes or multiclassing. The hybrid PrCs count, as they help with the 'effectively' part. They should also not be more powerful than core classes, nor should they be unnecessarily weak 'flavour' classes.
As far as I've seen there are three types of PrC that rarely go wrong in balance and flavor:
1. The specialist -- these usually take something the character is already decent at and make it a viable mechanic for regular use -- see the Duelist, shadowdancer, dragon disciple, and assassin for these.
2. The Hybrid -- this one is a bit harder to balance since you don't want too much of what it is a part of in the mix. Obvious examples are the arcane archer, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and mystic thuerge.
3. The oddity -- don't really have any of these present currently... the shadowdancer almost feels the spot but not really. This is the guy that develops something that wasn't normally a part of what was already present. Generally he takes a side of the game not normally used, and uses it, or does something that fluffwise is neat but didn't have mechanics to allow it.
Honestly, I feel a good PrC is one that provides a player with either 1) really cool flavor that's mechanically supported (whether or not it is unique or new mechanics) or 2) really useful and difficult to otherwise obtain abilities.
I don't like PrCs that are too wedded to flavor, because there's a lot of specializations that don't need to be associated with an organization. For example, there doesn't need to be a society of Duelists that you have to be a member of to take levels in the class. There shouldn't need to be a code of conduct and brotherhood you have to join to have access to the talents of the Dervish or Mystic Theurge. Those are things that may very well just be extensions of your PCs natural skill set, but that are better represented as a Prestige Class rather than feats/base classes/alternate class features.
I do agree, though, that I rather like PrCs that have a great deal of flavor, so long as they are mechanically supported. The Red Wizard of Thay PrC is a fun PrC that gives some interesting stuff to a character, while the fluff and concept of the Pathfinder Chronicler is interesting but mechanically poor in execution. Similarly, I would love to love the Masked Dancer from Complete Scoundrel, but the mechanics are just terrible, especially to accomplish what the fluff claims the class is good at. It ruins the class.
So, IMHO, good PrCs are either good, interesting fluff that benefits from good mechanics, or just good "advanced classes" that give you nice abilities that sort of need that treatment. I'd rather that the "prestige" part of the title be changed to "advanced" like in d20 Modern, honestly.
I'm in a game where we took a group of characters to 20th. The original GM is done with the story, a new one is starting the same group at level 21. Previous characters developed under 3.5 and converted to Pathfinder.
I am a 20th level ninja. Continuing on with ninja wouldn't do a whole lot of good so I'm looking for another class.
Enter PrC's. I could multiclass into a base class, but starting with esentially level one type abilities isn't going to do a whole lot of good against the level of BBEG's we are going to be fighting. Now I need to find a PrC which will take advantage of or work well with the abilities I have from my base class. So to me a good PrC is one that works well and expands the base class for the level of play I'm looking at.
Yeah, I like the specialist idea. Like a PrC for every church makes sense. Or such a niche like a lyncanthrope hunter or what not. Or a racial thing like Bladesingers
But I also like things such as the Blood Mage
The problems I most frequently run into with PrCs are pre-requisites. There are two design rationales (I think) for PrC pre-reqs, and I agree with neither:
I really disagree with the second rationale, but even the first creates problems in my games and puts a lot of pressure on the designers to "get it right" and not include useless pre-reqs.
Much of this rant can be extrapolated to feat pre-reqs as well, but it suffices to say that a quality PrC has carefully considered pre-reqs! I would prefer none, myself, but if they must be there, the PrC designer should presume as little as possible. Each pre-req that isn't essential to the spirit of the PrC eliminates dozens of potentially cool characters.
I get around this by waiving pre-reqs as a GM (for many feats too), but it should be foremost in any PrC designer's approach.
|
Although I agree the pre requisites need to make sense within the concept of the class, I don' think I agree with reducing them or eliminating them. They need to be there - these are supposed to be prestige classes ... they should be hard to qualify for!
I don't recall the issue number, but I think there was a good article on this very topic in an issue of Dragon magazine back in the early Third Edition time period ... I think Monte Cook may have written it.
For me, the ideal PRC is something that encompasses a concept of the same scope as a base class, but is something that simply wouldn't make sense for a first level adventurer. Things that you have to have a few years experience (a couple levels) before you can get to them. The hybrid classes all definitely qualify (conceptually, I'm not as big a fan of some of them mechanically), but I'm less keen on the others.
The only other suitable use of a PRC for me is to grant an ability that is powerful enough that it can only be balanced by an elaborate set of requirements and the loss of normal class features. Dragon Disciple is the only example of this in the Pathfinder Core.
Anything else should be represented by one or more feats and class options.
Honestly, I feel a good PrC is one that provides a player with either 1) really cool flavor that's mechanically supported (whether or not it is unique or new mechanics) or 2) really useful and difficult to otherwise obtain abilities.
I agree 100%
I agree with the OP that designers should err on the side of too few prereqs and think carefully about each one they include. For example, the Shadowdancer requires Stealth 5 ranks and Perform (dance) 2 ranks. Makes sense. She's a shadowdancer. She can sneak and she knows how to dance. Nothing onerous about that. But then there are feat requirements: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility. (Mobility requires Dodge, so Dodge doesn't really need to be listed, but maybe that's deliberate.) Essentially these feats are saying that the shadowdancer must good at making and avoiding attacks of opportunity. From that I would expect shadowdancers to possess abilities that capitalize on attacks of opportunity, but in fact I see no mention of AoO in any of the class features. Either the class features should develop the AoO specialization or the requirement is arbitrary. This may have been a missed opportunity to spell out some neat tactical ideas like the ability to designate shadows from which she can perform AoOs within the limits of her shadow jump, or the ability to confer shadows that counter enemy AoOs. Without such features, I'd rather, for the sake of flavor, see a skill tax that demands more ranks of dancing. Why? If you're a shadowdancer, you'd better know how to dance whether the skill mechanic apart from the PrC does you any good or not.
Yeah, I'd say that careful selection of prerequisites is at the heart of making a good PrC.
Oh, and I don't like racial prerequisites. I was surprised to see that Arcane Archer requires you to be an elf or a half-elf, especially since Dwarven Defender was excluded partly from a desire to avoid racially specific PrCs.
And regarding the Pathfinder Chronicler PrC, I have to disagree with the OP. I really like the concept of this PrC, and while I'm not on board with all the class features, I really like such features as Live to Tell the Tale, Pathfinding, and Improved Aid.
EDIT: I think I would build on the Live to Tell the Tale feature and say that any enemy that randomly decides to attack the Pathfinder Chronicler must make a Will Save (DC 15 + Chronicler level) or attack any other nearby character instead.
The conceptual prestige class I like most: the archmage.
Why? Because it's an extension of a class, and it's prestigious. If it is prestigious, why are there more prestige classes out there than regular classes?
As a prestige class, I especially dislike Red Wizard of Thay. For me, a prestige class (or a class) isn't a job, nor must it be linked to the game world. They reflect what your character can do, but not his guild/organization/whatever. And what if your character switches worlds? I agree that it can be unlikely, but I know several DM, who each like several worlds, and adventures happen in these different worlds.
Alas, there is no such thing as a rule in D&D for properly treating jobs, careers, and organizations... so we have to choose between prestige classes or the Profession skill.
FWIW The prereq of Elf is a mistake. James said that for PF no prestige classes will have a racial requirement.
What makes a good PrC is a difficult question to answer but I think it should provide roleplaying opportunities, should help fill a particular niche and have a unique angle to it.
What makes a bad PrC is easier to answer. It shouldn't be a "must have", it shouldn't step on the base classes' toes are my biggest gripe with a lot of the splatbook PrC.
Personally I like the idea of certain PrC belonging to a guild or organisation as for me both as a player and DM opens up roleplaying potential.
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned full BAB and casting yet :)
My own personal opinion:
PrC's should add something to a class or concept while also taking something away from it.
For instance: A class that gave you the full class abilities of the base class plus added goodies fails. It adds (which it should) but doesn't take anything away. If there is no good reason Not to take the PrC then its not built correctly.
Likewise, if it takes away too much but gives too little in exchange then the PrC isn't built correctly.
Myself, I don't really care for the fluff of any given PrC. The fluff of any base class or PrC is to me, completely mutable by the character in question, the DM, and/or the campaign. The only thing that says "fighter" is your character sheet. The rest of the "information" (i.e. non-mechanical stuff) is up for you to decide. For that reason- if the only reason you created the PrC was for the fluff then you should probably just rewrite the fluff for an existing class.
To me- the Archmage PrC was always one of the better written ones. You gain alot, potentially, while also giving up quite abit. (in spells per day).
The class needs to actually add something the game doesn't already have. If you can just multiclass and get most of the same benefits already or if you can just refluff one of the existing classes and go that route, then that is what should be done. Again- Anyone can "be" an archmage by name but the PrC itself actually added new abilities for arcane users.
-S
FWIW The prereq of Elf is a mistake. James said that for PF no prestige classes will have a racial requirement.
which I don't agree with
Options
If a PRC is to be aquired it should be to expand on options. An arcane trickster grants additional options to someone who wants to play a rogue/wizard. So this is a good PRC (maybe not the best, but it fills a niche). A pathfinder chronicler offers a wholey unique experience not found in any base classes. Another good example of what a prestige class should be.
Even arcane archer is fine (elves and 1/2 elves can take it). Stepping back a bit you can see that the PRC's in the core book fill every requirement for what people think a PRC should be. The problem is perceived power level.
Losing higher level class abilities are hard to replace. Most PRC's offer decent abilities, but once you get your ten levels you're re-entering a base class ten levels behind. Never mind the fact that entering a PRC is usually a pain.
Options. If feats or spells were designed to make entering a PRC palatable then that would be okay. If feats or spells were made available to improved PRC abilities at higher levels then that would be good too. Nothing needs to be changed, just added to.
I sort of agree with Abraham spalding: the two legitimate (IMO) categories for prestige classes are "hybrid" classes (like the Eldritch Knight) and "oddity" classes (like the 3.5 Master of Many Forms).
I disagree that "specialist" prestige classes are interesting; I'd much rather see those be alternate class features. For instance, you could split the Assassin's and the Shadowdancer's abilities into a set of Rogue talents and you could make the Loremaster a spellcaster class variant.
The "fluff" of a class should be interesting, but not too specific.
|
which I don't agree withFWIW The prereq of Elf is a mistake. James said that for PF no prestige classes will have a racial requirement.
I agree with it based on the fact that the only things that should be open to only one race would be something that literally requires the blood of that race. Unless you have a specific reason why only Elves can summon Forest Magic, such as 'the magic does not respond to those without elven blood', a particular style of fighting or magic should be learnable by everyone. This is, of course, providing that the character can convince the keepers of that tradition to teach him, or find the proper instructions wherever they are hidden.
FWIW The prereq of Elf is a mistake. James said that for PF no prestige classes will have a racial requirement.
Unless I missed an update, I think I have to challenge this. It's not in the errata, though there IS an errata line for the Arcane Archer. Are you saying this prerequisite is incorrect, and it was missed twice?
Personally I'd love unified rules where all of the PrCs were built on the same basic layout.
I think that PrCs should be accessible at 6th level and have 15 levels of advancement and that PCs should be limited to 1 PrC.
For example a revised eldritch knight
Prereqs-
+3 BAB
2nd level spells
Knowledge: Arcana 5 Ranks
1 Martial Weapon Proficiency
Light Armor Proficiency
This way a Sorceror 4/Fighter 1 or a Wizard 4/Fighter 1 or a Wizard 3/Fighter 2 can all qualify. A wizard with 1 martial weapon proficiency and light armor proficiency could access eldritch knight at 6th level but wouldn't access the capstone eldritch knight ability (whatever that is).
The Eldritch Knight would still be constructed as normal with Eldritch Knight 1 still losing access to a spell level. However I'd add in additional abilities that scale up that make the gish warrior a viable build. Possible abilities would include the ability to negate arcane armor penalties (no arcane penalties for light armor at EK 1, no penalties for medium at EK 6, no penalties for heavy at EK 10). Combined with some sort of swift action arcane strike class ability (+d6 elemental damage - can be modified per use - scales with level) would make the EK something other than a wizard who uses a sword or a fighter that can self-buff. This would be an eldritch knight that fights hard but in a different way than either the fighter or the wizard.
I disagree with this for what may seem an unconventional reason.
which I don't agree with
Let us not dwell overlong in response to the stated opinion of others, but rather put forth our own preferences.
The Arcane Trickster is a good example for me — several of its class abilities are not actually arcane-roguey. The Impromptu sneak attack seems like it could be a Greater Rogue Talent, and it doesn't really belond in this PrC IMO. I would rather have seen an ability that was specifically magical that enhanced sneak attack.
Some stuff
Thats a really cool perspective, I like it!
I think that PrCs should be accessible at 6th level and have 15 levels of advancement and that PCs should be limited to 1 PrC.
I agree that 10-level PrCs should be allowed to take them to 20th. It's easy enough to scale the abilities to 13-15th for those classes. The two-class PrCs (EK, AT, theurge, etc.) are more fun that way.
FWIW The prereq of Elf is a mistake. James said that for PF no prestige classes will have a racial requirement.Unless I missed an update, I think I have to challenge this. It's not in the errata, though there IS an errata line for the Arcane Archer. Are you saying this prerequisite is incorrect, and it was missed twice?
(James Jacobs 11/25/09) It wasn't a copy/paste error; it was an intentional choice in 3rd edition to present an elf-only class. And a dwarf-only class. Personally, since you can't change race once you start to play, I think that having a race be a prerequisite for a prestige class is TERRIBLY limiting and not good for the game. Removing the Elf Only requirement is a great example of errata, actually. It's an easy fix.
So yea it looks like they missed it twice.
I'm not seeing it. Why is a race-only PrC a bad mistake? Because not every character will be able to qualify for it? So, why does that make it a bad mistake?FWIW The prereq of Elf is a mistake. James said that for PF no prestige classes will have a racial requirement.Unless I missed an update, I think I have to challenge this. It's not in the errata, though there IS an errata line for the Arcane Archer. Are you saying this prerequisite is incorrect, and it was missed twice?(James Jacobs 11/25/09) It wasn't a copy/paste error; it was an intentional choice in 3rd edition to present an elf-only class. And a dwarf-only class. Personally, since you can't change race once you start to play, I think that having a race be a prerequisite for a prestige class is TERRIBLY limiting and not good for the game. Removing the Elf Only requirement is a great example of errata, actually. It's an easy fix.
So yea it looks like they missed it twice.
Dunno, ask James.
I guess its because if you wanted to be an arcane archer but wanted to play a gnome you're stuffed. A bit like it was seen as unfair waaaaaaaay back in 1ed Elves couldn't be Clerics or only Humans could play a Paladin.
Dunno, ask James.
I guess its because if you wanted to be an arcane archer but wanted to play a gnome you're stuffed.Like if you wanted to cast spells, but wanted to play a fighter, you're stuffed?
Or like you wanted to go without sleep like an Elf, but wanted to play a Human?
Or like you wanted to play a blood mage, but didn't want to have classes in any other casting class?When differences make no difference, they are no different.
Hey! Don't shoot the messenger.
EDIT: and I qualified why I think he said it. For the same reason why people got upset and threw out the Paladins are only human rule.
Dunno, ask James.
I guess its because if you wanted to be an arcane archer but wanted to play a gnome you're stuffed.Like if you wanted to cast spells, but wanted to play a fighter, you're stuffed?
Or like you wanted to go without sleep like an Elf, but wanted to play a Human?
Or like you wanted to play a blood mage, but didn't want to have classes in any other casting class?When differences make no difference, they are no different.
No, because we have a multiclassing system. If you want to play a fighter that casts spells you can multiclass. You can't multi-race. So yeah let's just go back to having racial restrictions on classes. In fact, I think non-humans shouldn't be able to level beyond maybe level 9, it'd force more people to play humans!
Yeah, no. 3.0 has moved ever onwards in adding MORE options rather than restricting them.
|
I want to play a human, but I want him to have +2 Dex and +2 Int, and -2 Con and I want him to have low-light vision, and be immune to sleep and get a +2 against enchantment spells and effects and I want him to get a +2 bonus on caster level checks against spell resistance and a + 2 bonus on Spellcraft and I want him to get a +2 bonus on Perception and I want him to be proficient in longbows as a racial ability - in fact, I want all of those abilities to be racial! And to balance it out, you can take the free +2 to one abiity score and the bonus feat and bonus skill points
What? You won't let me have a human like that? You big meanie! You're taking away my options - the game should be about having more options!
Ha, I like this post.
You can't multi-race.No, but you can choose your race at character creation can't you?
Unlike earlier versions of the game where your available races were restricted by die roll.For choices to mean anything, they must have consequences.
A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
You must be the absolutely worst DM in all history. Seriously. You spend all day every session desperately trying to kill your players don't you? What is wrong with the idea that it's a freaking game, let's have fun?!
You still not addressing my questions. Would you prefer it if Paladin were human only? As long as, as you have said, people have SOME choices why don't we restrict everyone to one class based on their race? Halflings have to be rogues. If you want to be a Fighter you have to be a Dwarf PERIOD.
This is not a choice, this is the illusion of choice. Allowing a non-Elf to play an arcane archer doesn't break the game so...why not allow it?
And how about addressing the issues brought up rather than going in full grognard mode.
oi, I loved the fact that only humans could be paladins. It was a 'racial trait', one of the very few humans could have.
Likewise, humans used to be the strongest fo the PC races. Half-Orcs get that now.
Humans had nothing going for them except paladin uniqueness, and unlimited levels. Back then, a 7/11 f/mu was easily the equal of a level 13 fighter, and could contribute solidly in a party of level 15+'s, so it wasn't an issue. Demi-humans got so many good things, putting level caps on them was the only logical way to limit their power sans unlimited levels from humans. The average demi-human was way better then the average human, but the exceptional humans were better then the demis.
I had no problem with that whatsoever.
=======
There are basically no PrC's that should exist in the realm of Melee. They should all be feat trees. Take a Simple class like the Dwarven Defender, make up 5 feats with the exact same pre-reqs, granting the exact same abilities, and people HOWL about balance, even if there is NO difference on what you end up with.
Feats can be restricted as easily as class levels. PrC and feat Reqs amount to the same things. You can require feats to have fluff, only found in certain places, etc, same as PrC's.
A PrC is really nothing more then an odd combination of feat trees, dressed up so people don't squirm at the power of the feats.
PrC's in the spellcasting realm should force the surrender of spellcasting ability for the perks. Too many PrC's for spellcasters are all give and no take. You can't compare the loss of familiar levels for ten levels to all the niceness of picking up, say, Initate of the Seven Veils, for a sorceror, or a cleric giving up, uh, nothing, for Radiant Servant of Pelor's many abilities.
Basically, PrC's made it plain that the core classes needed to be beefed up and reasons firmed WHY they were core classes. PrCing was basically NECCESSARY, and that's not a good thing.
===Aelryinth
What is wrong with the idea that it's a freaking game, let's have fun?!Nothing is wrong with that. But I believe that a sense of place is important for a game setting. If everything and anything is allowed, then what you end up with is mush. The idea of playing in a mush setting is pretty far away from my idea of fun.
Would you prefer it if Paladin were human only?It would depend on the class concept. But we're not talking about base classes here, we're talking about PrCs - PrCs were created to identify particular sodalities within a campaign setting (it was only later that they became the big money maker for WotC as a way to give players power ups).
It actually can break the game as a mush setting breaks suspension of disbelief.
Allowing a non-Elf to play an arcane archer doesn't break the game so...why not allow it?
Please explain this last statement. Explain how allowing a human to become an arcane archer (which in its rules has no special abilities tied to being an elf) breaks EVERY GAME. The core rules are supposed to represent the baseline for all game worlds, not one specific set of fluff/flavor rules.
And as we said the prestige classes AREN'T nor should they ever be purely a fluff distinction. They fill roles and have abilities that can't quite be done by the core classes but aren't different enough to be entirely new core classes. Personally I'd rather there were just ten thousand core classes and disallow multiclassing.
I'm not the type of person to grumble about WotC putting out lots of prestige classes because I enjoy prestige classes. I feel that more options is always better, putting new ideas out there is NEVER bad, and it's the DM's responsibility to use what he likes and discard the rest. Which of course goes for the core rules as well.
I'm playing a half-elf arcane archer purely because I have to. It doesn't fit my character concept as well as pure human, but it's not the end of the world. Designers have already said this is a restriction that should be changed. I agree, you disagree. I just have a hard time understanding your reasoning for disagreeing as your stance seems to be "eff players this is MY game".
I like "little" PrCs myself. 5 levels or even 3 levels for a little dip into specialization
Yeah I don't see any reason to restrict arcane archer to elf only unless you really only like playing throwback style games. Most arcane archers are probably going to be elves but I don't see the point in saying that arcane archers are only going to teach the class to other elves.
I think you can definitely justify PC concepts that break the rules such as a Human who learns from a group of elven arcane archers.
After all there have been rules breaking examples in every version of the game. Example: Drow could not be rangers in 1e, yet fanboys all over the world would never have enjoyed the twin scimitar emo drow ;)
Hell if someone gave me a compelling backstory I'd probably reskin the elf as a Fae-Touched Human and have the character go with elf racial traits rather than human racial traits. And you know what it could easily be an epic character :D
Elven Blooded
prerequisite: human, halfling, gnome or fey subtype
Benefits: you count as an elf in addition to your normal race. This allows you to qualify for feats and prestige classes normally reserved for elves and to use magic items normally restricted to elves.
You also gain a +2 racial bonus to saves against enchantment effects and perception checks.
Note: You cannot have more than one racially blooded feat.
Within reason a feat like this could be made for just about any race.
I still say adding things to the game will serve us better than changing them (or complaining without offering solutions).
For me, a good prestige class is that special combination of setting specific background and a previously unfilled rules niche.
I think a good prestige class has to:
- Offer a role or style not eaily achievable with base classes alone
- Allow the developement of a theme you can build in new and interesting ways
- Or simplify a complex build that expresses a simple idea into a single class
For example, a Mystic Theurge is a simple idea, but it cannot be done effectively with any base class or combination thereof, casting rules being what they are. It's an example of (1).
An Assassin is a concept you can fulfil with a rogue, but the Assassin class does it better with more interesting toys.
A Duelist could be imitated from a fighter/rogue with some other whistles and bells, but not as well.
@Lilith'sThrall and MeatRace:
It weakens the forums when conversations cease being constructive, so I have a personal request:
As a rule of thumb, if what you are about to post contains no new ideas, but purely response, best not to post at all. Asking someone to justify their statement while simultaneously implying they are wrong or ridiculous is a wasted post.
Thank you.
I'll add this to my above statements on PrCs: a PrC (in any combination) really shouldn't have more total power than the base classes. This was the big win for Pathfinder RPG, in my opinion — each of the classes is tempting to stick with for the long haul.
This ties in with my "please be careful with pre-reqs" statement. If PrCs don't actually introduce more power but just different power, then the pre-reqs should be lax enough that a good portion of characters might gain access without planning it from level 1.