Triga |
I was looking through the prestige classes part of the rule book, and noticed that the only one that fit a pure melee character was the duelist. ok, but why would my great sword wielding, plate armor wearing Knight all of a sudden decide to ditch his armor and pick up a rapier?
Or am i missing something?
Rathendar |
I was looking through the prestige classes part of the rule book, and noticed that the only one that fit a pure melee character was the duelist. ok, but why would my great sword wielding, plate armor wearing Knight all of a sudden decide to ditch his armor and pick up a rapier?
Or am i missing something?
Living Monolith from the Osirion book
/random example.Peasant Railgun |
The Stalwart Defender prestige class in the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide seems to suit heavy armour-wearing, greatsword-wielding types.
From the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview Banquet Recap:
I previewed the Stalwart Defender during the banquet, which is an update of the 3.5 Dwarven Defender. The name change stems from the fact that you no longer need to be a dwarf to take levels in this class*. The class also grants many new abilities that the defender can choose from as he gains levels.
*Emphasis mine
meatrace |
The Stalwart Defender prestige class in the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide seems to suit heavy armour-wearing, greatsword-wielding types.
From the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview Banquet Recap:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:I previewed the Stalwart Defender during the banquet, which is an update of the 3.5 Dwarven Defender. The name change stems from the fact that you no longer need to be a dwarf to take levels in this class*. The class also grants many new abilities that the defender can choose from as he gains levels.*Emphasis mine
My friend is gonna skeet when we get back to age of worms. His AC is already ungodly at like 35 at level 8. It's seriously retarded.
meatrace |
meatrace wrote:My friend is gonna skeet when we get back to age of worms. His AC is already ungodly at like 35 at level 8. It's seriously retarded.I haven't experienced Age of Worms, but from what I've heard about its difficulty his AC might still be too low! ;)
We're playing it with PF and so far it's a cakewalk. But we're only a few adventures in.
Larry Lichman Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games |
Peasant Railgun wrote:We're playing it with PF and so far it's a cakewalk. But we're only a few adventures in.meatrace wrote:My friend is gonna skeet when we get back to age of worms. His AC is already ungodly at like 35 at level 8. It's seriously retarded.I haven't experienced Age of Worms, but from what I've heard about its difficulty his AC might still be too low! ;)
Just wait. It gets ugly...
DM_Blake |
OK, i understand that it really is not needed to fill any role, the role is all ready filled nicely, and I also know that pathfinder rewards sticking with a single class. I guess I am looking at prestige classes wrong. Instead of being superior to the other classes, what are there role?
A well-designed prestige class should be equally powerful to the core classes.
The "role" of prestige classes should be to take your base character in a direction that is not satisfied by the core classes. You mentioned Duelist in your OP, that's a good example. A duelist is a highly mobile, lightly armored fighter wielding puny weapons that do great damage. You cannot build that with any core class - if you do, they will be very weak compared to a heavily armored fighter using a big, deadly weapon. Hence the duelist; a class that makes such a character concept viable.
Since the concept you have, a heavily armored knight wielding a big, deadly weapon, is perfectly suited to the Core fighter, there is no need for a PrC to create this concept - which is a good thing, because there really isn't one.
Others have mentioned the Hellknight, which might work, but they have other stuff built into the PrC that doesn't meet the "greatsword wielding heavy-armored knight" concept. If you want that other stuff, great, it's a perfect PrC, but if you don't, then you're better off just sticking with fighter.
Likewise, some have mentioned the Stalwart Defender. This class is built more for massive defense rther than massive offense. If this is what you want, great, it may be perfect for you. If you want to focus more on hacking your foes apart and treat your defense as a secondary consideration, then you're probably better off sticking with fighter.
w0nkothesane |
I was looking through the prestige classes part of the rule book, and noticed that the only one that fit a pure melee character was the duelist. ok, but why would my great sword wielding, plate armor wearing Knight all of a sudden decide to ditch his armor and pick up a rapier?
Or am i missing something?
Prestige Classes in Pathfinder really don't follow the pattern of "it's like an XXXXX but better". Instead, they do one of a few things:
-Combine archetype abilities, such as Eldritch Knight (Magic user/fighter) or Arcane Trickster (Rogue/Magic User).
-Special Abilities, such as the Shadow Dancer.
-Themed groups, such as the Pathfinder Chronicler.
-Specialization beyond the core classes, like the Loremaster.
They also tend to avoid making unnecessary Prestige Classes for things that are already covered by the normal classes. What you're looking for, for example, is already very well covered by playing a Fighter in full plate, with weapon training in heavy blades. There needn't be special mechanics for that, because it's already there, waiting to be taken.
Gambit |
Oddly enough, 3.5 didnt have a single PrC that fits this bill either. Certain classes had PrC's that were effectively their class but better, the Incantatrix was the Wizard+, Radiant Servant of Pelor was the Cleric+, Frenzied Berserker was the Barbarian+, ect. But the Fighter didnt have a single PrC for heavy armor wearing, big ole weapon wielding with pure skill lay the smack down prestige class of doom(as opposed to the RAAAWWRR Im gonna kill everyone Frenzied Berserker), another reason to feel sorry for 3.5 Fighters.