Stuff about PrCs and themes and such.One of the aggravating things about 3.5 that Paizo has taken a philosophical stance against (that I agree with), is that there is no reason for prestige classes that have the theme, "<insert class name> but more!" There were a disturbing number of prestige classes in 3.5 that were nothing beyond amped-up version of base classes.
Amped up versions of base classes in the simplest sense - they were the base. The classes came with neither frills nor bells nor whistles.
|
Know what one of the great things about Pathfinder's 3.5 compatibility is? Your PFRPG character can pretty easily add on levels of 3.5 classes.
Pathfinder-Compatible Archmage Prestige Class
Problem Solved.
Stuff about PrCs and themes and such.One of the aggravating things about 3.5 that Paizo has taken a philosophical stance against (that I agree with), is that there is no reason for prestige classes that have the theme, "<insert class name> but more!" There were a disturbing number of prestige classes in 3.5 that were nothing beyond amped-up version of base classes. The Archmage prestige class, as an example, was the "Wizard but more!" because it offered the same benefits of being a high-level Wizard, but also included features that probably should have been class feature options of the Wizard anyway. Hats off to Paizo for recognizing and correcting this.
-Skeld
Indeed - I also agree with this stance. Prestige classes need to be prestigious!
To be fair Abraham, I remember you using the Archmage prestige class for your Universalist Wizard during the Alpha/Beta Playtests.Seriously this again? The reason wasn't simply a naming issue. They didn't want prestige classes that rendered the base classes obsolete at higher levels.
That's what the Archmage did. Why stick to simply 20 levels of wizard if instead you could get those caster levels and extra goodies?
In the end the APG will probably have several feats that will duplicate parts (if not all) of what the archmage could do.
To be fair when we did the alpha/beta playtests there was still an archmage to be used.
|
|
To be fair when we did the alpha/beta playtests there was still an archmage to be used.To be fair Abraham, I remember you using the Archmage prestige class for your Universalist Wizard during the Alpha/Beta Playtests.Seriously this again? The reason wasn't simply a naming issue. They didn't want prestige classes that rendered the base classes obsolete at higher levels.
That's what the Archmage did. Why stick to simply 20 levels of wizard if instead you could get those caster levels and extra goodies?
In the end the APG will probably have several feats that will duplicate parts (if not all) of what the archmage could do.
You asked the question: "Why stick to simply 20 levels of wizard if instead you could get those caster levels and extra goodies?"
So if you're playing a Pathfinder Wizard, why did you take the PrC? It got caster levels and way more goodies then the 3.5 Wizard, so why take Archmage levels if you could get he title anyway and do really cool stuff?
Well duh. The exact reason they left the prestige class out in the final rules.
What is your point?
Are you some how trying to call me a hypocrite because I point out the designer's reasons for what they did? Having playtested with the rules of the playtest I have found myself in agreement with them -- big surprise. That in no way means that by doing exactly what we were supposed to do in the playtest my opinion on the final rules is somehow invalidated by the playtest data we got from the playtest.
Think about it: The playtest we did actually directly supports what the designers did. Of the two wizards in the group both of us used wizard/loremaster/archmage instead of straight wizard 20 (which btw we only got to 17th level so planning for wizard 20 would have been stupid). Why did we both do it? Because it was better than staying wizard 20. So obviously something needed to change to give good reason to stay wizard to 20th level.
On a side note does anyone here think that it could be cool if the base classes caped on 20 and then when the epic levels knock on the door, we'd have EPIC classes, like the Archmage, or even Godling, that would receive differen't abilities that wouldn't completely screw things up? No higher level spell slots, additional BAB or glut of hp, just cool stuff?
The idea that you need a PrC just that you can call yourself "Archmage" or "High Priest" sucked.Where do you get this silly piece of dreck from?
From your mother.
Oh wait, it isn't "be ludicrously rude to people for no reason day" and you're just rude because you like it.
I retract my previous statement.
I don't see anywhere in the 3.0 or 3.5 rules that say you cannot call yourself an Archmage
I know that full well.
Still, putting such a PrC in the core rules sent the wrong message.
Forgive me, but wasn't the Archmage PrC first introduced in the FRCS?
Yes. They were then considered to be neutral enough to make the revision.
Now, Boyd, Heinso(sp?) and the other designers for the FRCS would want a PrC Archmage not because it's like a "Fighter-who-kicks-the-ass-of-all-other-fighters" but because the title "Archmage" permeates the FR novels.It seems that it's more likely they named it Archmage because of the novels.
They also had many "weapon masters" and who-knows-what.
To Kae Yoss: So is your point they should have added your list of feats/abilities to the base classes of the Wizard/Soceror and Cleric, instead tacking them onto the prestige classes of the Hierophant and Archmage? Well, if Paizo did that, then I would agree with you, the problem is they didn't. The Wizard is just as bareboned as he was in 3.5 (with the exception of Arcane Hold).
Yes, that is my point. I think it was implied that high-level super-magic feats will be in the Advanced Player's Guide.
And read the book again: Wizards got several extra abilities like arcane bond and all the school abilities (including the "Universal" school, which is for those who don't want to specialise)
So I guess I just don't understood those who are making the argument for getting rid of the Archmage. You say because that is what a high level Wizard IS, however, the arcane classes just do not show it in their ability list (per level).
How don't they show it? Spellcasters of levels 13 and beyond can do stuff like kill you with a word, transform into frikkin' dragons, shoot meteors around, bring people back from the dead, control the weather, travel vast distances instantly (or even go to different planes), call archangels to help them, make people go insane, imprison others forever, make time stop, or just wish for reality to change to suit their whims.
That's what being an archmage, or hierophant, or high priest is all about. Really powerful magic.
I've always said that, Kae. Spellcasting in and of itself is an awesome ability which changes itself drastically based on what choices you make. People have a tendency to falling into the trap of believing spellcasting to be a staple, and thus rather pedestrian and ability. Full Wizard/Sorcerer spellcasting is anything BUT pedestrian. It is powerful and malleable which is why the other cool special abilities a Wizard and Sorcerer gets aren't all that strong, but gentle nudges in one direction or another.
I had a player complain once that there weren't enough prestige classes to help him uniquely define his Wizard's character. I was incredulous. I said that spell selection alone is a great way to mechanically define a character. Wizards, by definition, can be very unique. When he asked me if he'd get any bonuses for limiting his spellcasting to a theme, I facepalmed. Sometimes people just want something for nothing.
Yes, that is my point. I think it was implied that high-level super-magic feats will be in the Advanced Player's Guide.
And read the book again: Wizards got several extra abilities like arcane bond and all the school abilities (including the "Universal" school, which is for those who don't want to specialise)
Yes, if you read a more recent post of mine (after this one) I retracted what I had said and apologized.
How don't they show it? Spellcasters of levels 13 and beyond can do stuff like kill you with a word, transform into frikkin' dragons, shoot meteors around, bring people back from the dead, control the weather, travel vast distances instantly (or even go to different planes), call archangels to help them, make people go insane, imprison others forever, make time stop, or just wish for reality to change to suit their whims.
That's what being an archmage, or hierophant, or high priest is all about. Really powerful magic.
KaeYoss (and this goes to Loopy, as well) it's just how people think, myself included. If you are going to get a spellcaster, you are going to get spells. So yes, they should be expected. Just like Monks will get their increased movement, higher AC bonus or how Fighters get their extra feats or just about any class that gets what is standard for them.
Yes spells are the lifeblood of casters, But, just like any other class, they do want more with the Prestige classes. Being able to just cast their 'higher spells' is not enough. They want something to feel more specialized compared to other casters (and besides limiting your spell selection by becoming a Specialist). So therefore, the point of the prestige class.
Both of you may feel that spells alone should be enough for a spellcaster. It's like the DM cutting off prestige classes to the spellcasting classes. "Why do you want to take 'x' prestige class? Your spells are powerful enough." So yes, gaining a spell level is a wonderful thing as it opens you up to greater and more powerful spells. However, some players want something a little more than just gaining spells.
But, it is nice that PF actually did change up the Wizard and Sorceror to make their normal levels more exciting to go up in. Especially the Sorceror bloodline, which is very nice. And you truly can define your character even more compared to other Sorceror's depending on what bloodline you choose.
There's feats for specialising.
Prestige classes should be prestigious. That doesn't just mean "more power for nothing". It means they should have actual flavour. The archmage was just a collection of what should have been feats, following a "concept" that should have been built-in.
Just heaping on more abilities and bloating the number of PrCs because people don't think spells don't count doesn't sound good to me.
In fact, I'd do with most PrCs completely and handle it with feats/ feat chains. Only really prestigious/ special/ outlandish ideas should get a PrC. Archmage? That's just a powerful-enough wizard. You get to call yourself "archmage" as soon as your magic muscles are strong enough to fatally rebuke everyone who would say he isn't.
But a bloatmage? That's some crazy shit right there. PrC that!
There's feats for specialising.
Most of the feats for my Sorceror (I prefer Sorcerors over Wizards) are not worthwhile for me. There are some, yes, that are nice. Like the Extra Spell is almost mandatory for a Sorceror. And Mobile Spellcasting is very nice, as well. And the Spell Penetration feats are a necessity for offensive casters. But since I am not a fan of Item creation feats due to not wanting to burn XP or Metamagic feats due to the increased casting time for spontaneous casters, it cuts off a lot of the feats which are worthwhile to me.
Granted, I know PFRPG has made changes in both areas. Where they have done away with the burning XP when making magic items (Yaaay) and you can take a Sorceror bloodline (I think it's Arcane) where you don't receive the increased casting time for Metamagic feats. However, I am only speaking from my experience in 3.5 as I have not played PFRPG, yet.
Prestige classes should be prestigious. That doesn't just mean "more power for nothing". It means they should have actual flavour.
I agree!
The archmage was just a collection of what should have been feats, following a "concept" that should have been built-in.
I can see your point. But as it has been said above those "feats" that are built into the Archmage PrC, and more importantly, how they are built in, actually make it worthwhile to take the prestige class. Yes, Energy Substitution already exists, but it's in a form where I wouldn't want to take it as I would need to take it five times to achieve the same "feat" (High Arcana) I can get through the Archmage. And Mastery of Shaping, Mastery of Counterspelling or Spell Like Ability do not exist at all in any shape or form. Well, I believe there is a Counterspelling feat, but again, it doesn't exist in the same form (mechanics) as through the Archmage.
Now if PFRPG offered those feats in the same manner as you would receive them through the Archmage PrC, then I completely would agree with yours, and others argument on how they should be feats. However, if the feats were implemented like they are now, where you have to take multiples to get one ability, or you have to cast/memorize them at a higher spell slot, then it wouldn't be worthwhile.
Now James made it clear there would be class alternative options in the upcoming Player's Guide, so maybe that will be what I am looking for.
Archmage? That's just a powerful-enough wizard. You get to call yourself "archmage" as soon as your magic muscles are strong enough to fatally rebuke everyone who would say he isn't.
And here we go again, the name issue of the PrC. I know James already stated from Paizo's side they didn't eliminate the Archmage PrC because it was named Archmage. And he made it clear why they did get rid of it and I understand their viewpoint.
But it seems a lot of people on the forums take offense at that name. And really, I am not arguing that. If WoTC named him something else, I wouldn't have cared. What my point was in regards to the mechanics of the PrC, not what he was named.
Prestige classes should be prestigious. That doesn't just mean "more power for nothing". It means they should have actual flavour.
I disagree. Flavor-only prestige classes are absolutely worthless to me, and mechanically sound prestige classes get their flavor thrown out anyway. Flavoring prestige classes means that either the DM has to accept that flavor in his world or has to re-work the flavor to fit his world.
Besides, it's not like ANY of the PRPG Prestige Classes in the Core Rulebook have any actual flavor except for the Pathfinder Chronicler, which is really, really badly underpowered.
Creative Director
|
Just as a heads-up... at this point it looks like the Archmage and Hierophant powers are going to end up actually becoming high-level feats, so ANY spellcaster who qualifies for them can get these powers without having to give up his normal class level powers. Which feels to me like the perfect solution!
Just as a heads-up... at this point it looks like the Archmage and Hierophant powers are going to end up actually becoming high-level feats, so ANY spellcaster who qualifies for them can get these powers without having to give up his normal class level powers. Which feels to me like the perfect solution!
That's great, James!
Now can you divulge what balancing factors (prereqs) there are in attaining them? I would be very happy in keeping the same how it is with the Archmage PrC in sacrificing spell slots.
I just hope the feats are like the actual Archmage PrC, where you don't have a take Energy Substition five times to get the full ability, or you have to cast/memorize the spells at a higher spell slot.
Just as a heads-up... at this point it looks like the Archmage and Hierophant powers are going to end up actually becoming high-level feats, so ANY spellcaster who qualifies for them can get these powers without having to give up his normal class level powers. Which feels to me like the perfect solution!
I liked the idea of High Level Alternate Class Features. I would be the ultimate reason to stay in your class and would be consitent with the decision of making the Ranger ¨eat¨ the Horizon Walker.
Or alternatively a feat the opens up the choices. Something like:
PREQUISITE: Able to cast 7th level arcane spells, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Spell Focus in two schools of magic, Knowledge (Arcana)12 ranks, Spellcraft 12 ranks
BENEFITS: Whenever you gain and increased level in the spellcasting class that granted you access to this feat you can choose to obtain a High Arcana (the Archmage abilities) from *a list*, up two a maximum of 5 High Arcanas
Humbly,
Yawar
|
Creative Director
|
Now can you divulge what balancing factors (prereqs) there are in attaining them? I would be very happy in keeping the same how it is with the Archmage PrC in sacrificing spell slots.
I just hope the feats are like the actual Archmage PrC, where you don't have a take Energy Substition five times to get the full ability, or you have to cast/memorize the spells at a higher spell slot.
I can't yet. They're still being developed and edited, and we don't normally reveal stuff like that early anyway (the public beta testing for the new base classes is an exception to our normal rule). We MIGHT preview some of them on the blog as we get closer to the APG's release date, but for now, it's radio silence (beyond the fact that we ARE doing something with these orphaned prestige class powers).
I disagree. Flavor-only prestige classes are absolutely worthless to me
Prestige classes should be prestigious. That doesn't just mean "more power for nothing". It means they should have actual flavour.
So you want bland, overpowered crap? I don't want to sound adversarial, but that's the most logical conclusion (and the only one that comes to me in a hurry) I can draw from that.
Flavoring prestige classes means that either the DM has to accept that flavor in his world or has to re-work the flavor to fit his world.
Of course. PrCs shouldn't be generic. They should fit the world.
Besides, it's not like ANY of the PRPG Prestige Classes in the Core Rulebook have any actual flavor except for the Pathfinder Chronicler, which is really, really badly underpowered.
They're a legacy. I'd probably have done away with most of them, maybe all of them, and increased the feat section to add some of the abilities.
But you'll note that most PrCs Paizo does actually have a flavour.
Granted, I know PFRPG has made changes in both areas. Where they have done away with the burning XP when making magic items (Yaaay) and you can take a Sorceror bloodline (I think it's Arcane) where you don't receive the increased casting time for Metamagic feats. However, I am only speaking from my experience in 3.5 as I have not played PFRPG, yet.
That explains a log. Play/read the Pathfinder classes. After that, your demand of PrCs will probably plummet :D
I can see your point. But as it has been said above those "feats" that are built into the Archmage PrC
The way six cans of ber are "built into" a six-pack ;-P
The class is no flavour, it's just a set of abilities you get off a shopping list, basically a number of feats that stand on each other's shoulders and wear a grey robe of the archmagi to pass off as Gandalf to get into the PrC club, like kids in some cartoon.
[Archmage class abilities] do not exist at all in any shape or form.
Because they made it a PrC instead of a list of loosely related feats. Those abilities work just as well - actually, better - as a number of feats.
The fun part about the feats is that your class abilities continue to improve! Conjurers still get their permanent summon, a necromancer's life sight continues to expand, a destined sorcerer will still realise his destiny.
Now if PFRPG offered those feats in the same manner as you would receive them through the Archmage PrC, then I completely would agree with yours, and others argument on how they should be feats. However, if the feats were implemented like they are now, where you have to take multiples to get one ability, or you have to cast/memorize them at a higher spell slot, then it wouldn't be worthwhile.
I bet they'll just steal my house-ruled feats ;-)
So you want bland, overpowered crap?I disagree. Flavor-only prestige classes are absolutely worthless to me
Prestige classes should be prestigious. That doesn't just mean "more power for nothing". It means they should have actual flavour.
Yes, because the fact that I don't care about flavor means I want every prestige class to be Planar Shepherd.
That's sarcasm, in case your detector is broken.
Flavor has nothing to do with overpoweredness. There are plenty of overpowered prestige classes that are full of flavor; for example, Incantatrix. What I actually said what that I have no use for prestige classes that are only flavor with no worthwhile mechanics to back that up, such as the Pathfinder Chronicler (which even the creator has admitted is very sub-par). What I actually meant is that I'd prefer that the effort was put into mechanics rather than flavor, because mechanics are universal and flavor is not. You can re-flavor a good class that has bad flavor. It's much more difficult to re-engineer a class that has bad mechanics but good flavor.
I overlooked that "only" in there. My bad.
No problem, Lord knows I've made more egregious mistakes than that in the recent past.