|
Pathfinder Folks:
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for scaling back the prestige classes from their insanity in 3.5. I remember loving the idea when I first encountered it in 2000. As originally conceived (if memory serves), the PrC was a great idea: a specialized option for players when they joined an organization. As such, the PrC more closely tied characters to the world, and rewarded those who joined something larger than themselves.
Many of the PrCs presented in Pathfinder materials that I have seen so far have continued this tradition, and I applaud the choice. However, having recently picked up the APG, I noticed there were a lot more "generic" PrCs that did not specifically tie to the world of Golarion. Which is funny, considering that in the same book you've managed to present the perfect solution to specialist PrCs: alternate class features. By allowing players to choose a schtick at first level, this demolishes the need for PrCs that allow players to craft characters that fit a certain subtype.
Anyways, I wanted to let you know that, as a customer, I do not support the creation of more "generic" PrCs. I understand that there is a market for them, but they hold no interest for me.
At their initial conception, if I recall, prestige classes had absolutely nothing to do with specific organizations - in fact, I think that tying prestige classes to a faction or society is a bad idea - I'd rather see such membership reflected as flavor, not mechanics.
I always felt that prestige classes were a good way to offer a character some type of specialized mechanic that could not be produced with feats or skills while at the same time avoiding the gross overcrowding of an entirely new class for every concept.
|
PrCs should cover:
- organization membership which results in unique abilities/training. Eg: Red Mantis Assassin, Hellknight
- unique concepts that cannot be covered by a base class archetype (eg. fusions of two classes such as Battle Herald or Rage Prophet), or really off-the-wall ideas (Master Chymist)
For anything else, go with an archetype.
Total agreement with Gorbacz
I've finally gotten rid of them in my houserules, by providing options for the existing base classes. The only PrC in my houserules now is, ironically, the paladin.
Ah, but why couldn't the Red Mantis organization be represented by the standard Assassin PrC? And it seems to me the Hellknights function just fine as fighters and cavaliers. I actually think that the "need" to create a new prestige class for every organization is one of the things that lead to the drastic overcrowding we saw in 3.5. It's something to watch out for, but so far I think that Paizo is doing a pretty solid job of avoiding this so far (I'm a bit dubious as to the necessity of the Nature Warden, and I felt that the Pathfinder Chronicler was unnecessary when we've got the Loremaster). Overall, I've been rather pleased. I expecially applaud the "Battle Herald" in the APG. We probably had seven variants of a bard and/or marshal prestige class that focuses on rallying or commanding troops back in 3.5, and Pathfinder has introduced a single prestige class with a unique mechanic that can cover all of them. This is what I'd like to see more of.
Ah, but why couldn't the Red Mantis organization be represented by the standard Assassin PrC?
Because the RM version is way cooler and oozes style. Also, normal Assassins can't turn into huge mantises.
If you haven't read both classes, I encourage you to do so -- they're just about as different as two classes built on the rough "Assassin" idea could be.
The rRed Mantis are known for mystic powers and yep, spells. They are a cut above just assassins. They are both the worlds greatest assassins and a religious cult.
The Hell knights are not all of that PRC, but it does match the order rather well. Most Hell knights would be fighters, cavilers and some paladins thrown in as well.
Those two are the very examples of what a PRC really is.
But not everyone plays within the world of Golarian. I think that Paizo, for the most part, has been endeavoring to keep the crunch and the flavor separate so that most mechanics can be easily adopted to a hombebrewed campaign world. When you release a PrC in a core game supplement that's tied to an organization, you've got two pages that are dead weight to any GM that doesn't employ that society in their game.
I've finally gotten rid of them in my houserules, by providing options for the existing base classes. The only PrC in my houserules now is, ironically, the paladin.
Do you use a variation on the Unearthed Arcana 15 level Paladin PrC?
I've contemplated taking some of the ideas from UA such as Bards, Paladins, Druids, Rangers as 15 level PrCs but I haven't gotten that far in my design process.
Ultimately I wonder if stripping the game back down to 4 or so base classes with a ton of modular options would be a good design. I think you could even deconstruct the classes even further and get down to 2 classes martial and caster but that might be too much of a break with tradition :D
|
|
Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.
Some thing's wrong with the fundamental order of the universe: I am in a full agreement with TOZ for the second time in one week period ? Maybe it's some Xmas thing ?
I think the idea has some merit, but it tends to make it a little shaky to work within the system at times. I have nothing wrong with a more bare-bones character generation system, I've just felt that that isn't what Pathfinder is about.
|
Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.Some thing's wrong with the fundamental order of the universe: I am in a full agreement with TOZ for the second time in one week period ? Maybe it's some Xmas thing ?
Christmas miracle, spirit of giving, yadda yadda. :)
Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.
I have to agree with this as well. Archetypes make most PRC's pointless.They are what PRC's should have been
Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.I have to agree with this as well. Archetypes make most PRC's pointless.They are what PRC's should have been
Yup. The only thing they don't help with is spellcaster multiclassing.
Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.I have to agree with this as well. Archetypes make most PRC's pointless.They are what PRC's should have been
I think its more that Prestige classes tried to fill the role that achetypes are far better suited for. I dont think Prestige classes were ever really meant to become what they did when they were brought about. There just wasnt a solid alternative.
But I do agree that Archetypes are a great way to do what PrC's tried to do for many years, and do it much better.
PrCs are/were a particularly important concept for a couple of reasons that Pathfinder hasn't 100% resolved.
1)PrCs are pretty much critical to handling many of the hybrid concepts, particularly caster multiclassing. Because the 3.x system rewards full spellcasting progression so much sacrificing levels in order to build a hybrid progression are particularly problematic. A Rogue 10/Fighter 10 is still a fairly decent character a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is bad at both roles. Now arguably the hybrid PrCs were never done right and as a result we got hybrid base classes like the Duskblade and now the Magus, but designing and playtesting a new base class is a daunting option even for experienced designers.
2)PrCs helped resolve so of the inherent problems with the 3.x mechanics. PrC dipping in 3.x was a critical method for boosting saves to a respectable level vs save DCs for instance. Honestly this is something that is still largely unresolved as dipping PrCs is still a very effective way of covering up glaring character weaknesses.
Pathfinder's solution was to incentivize sticking with a class for 20 levels by offering some really nice capstone abilities. Overall I think this is a good design but I wonder if making saves tied to level progression instead of class progression would resolve the deeper rooted issue.
Overall I like the drift away from PrC bloat, in particular the caster +++ PrCs but I see that they provide value to the game.
|
|
Yup. The only thing they don't help with is spellcaster multiclassing.Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.I have to agree with this as well. Archetypes make most PRC's pointless.They are what PRC's should have been
I think Trailblazer's unified spellcasting chart is the answer to that, but that's a little far afield.
PrCs should cover:
- organization membership which results in unique abilities/training. Eg: Red Mantis Assassin, Hellknight
- unique concepts that cannot be covered by a base class archetype (eg. fusions of two classes such as Battle Herald or Rage Prophet), or really off-the-wall ideas (Master Chymist)For anything else, go with an archetype.
+1
|
At their initial conception, if I recall, prestige classes had absolutely nothing to do with specific organizations - in fact, I think that tying prestige classes to a faction or society is a bad idea - I'd rather see such membership reflected as flavor, not mechanics.
Actually, if you read anything by folks like Monte Cook on the subject, you'll see that prestige classes were very much designed to be very closely tied to specific organizations and groups within a given campaign world. That was actually the point of them. Unfortunately, because it was decided that the "sample" prestige classes presented in the core Third Edition rules would be more setting and specific organization neutral, people got the "wrong" idea and continued to make new prestige classes that were not as tied to groups.
The idea was really that individual DMs would customize and / or create new prestige classes specifically as a way to tie the characters more closely to his campaign.
I really like the archetype idea as an elegant replacement for many of the prestige classes. I'd very much like to see prestige classes go back to what they were originally intended to be.
I agree wholeheartedly with Gorbacz and TriOmegaZero.
I just recently went through about a dozen 3.5 supplements to fish out any prestige classes that would fit my world. I came to the same conclusion, there were too many prestige classes that just weren't very prestigious. Like Exotic Weapon Master for example ("Complete Warrior" page 30). I agree, the archetype is where this kind of stuff should be, and prestige classes should be more closely tied to organizations.
Kirth Gersen and Vuron, your singin' my song man! I ended up booting the Paladin and I'm considering making the Bard into a 15-level prestige class.
I like the idea of starting out at first level with one non-class then moving up through generic classes to core classes to prestige classes, but that is a completely different system a lot like the Warhammer RPG.
Though in the end, such a system would only appeal to a few players who think it's fun to start their characters as nobodies who work their way up to hero status. Most players want to start the game as heroes; and that's cool, people have every right to play the game they way they like, and the game designers will just have to come down on the side with the most support. If that leaves a few of us out in the dark, oh well, at least it's not 4th edition.
Here's something for inspiration. :)
Kirth Gersen and Vuron, your singin' my song man! I ended up booting the Paladin and I'm considering making the Bard into a 15-level prestige class.
Implying my Unearthed Arcana isn't like my favorite 3.x book ever ;)
I actually like the Prestige Bard though. He needs a lot of work to get up to Pathfinder standards and the lack of some divine healing spells means that he has to use UMD to fill the backup healer function that the core bard covers but I think it's definitely a good start.
|
Archetypes are what prestige classes should have been from the start. Alternate abilities that require you to give up something to get, but don't break your level progression into 'suck now and rule later'.
I mostly agree with this, I just want to say that I do think that organization based PrCs shouldn't be archtypes (I also don't think every organization should have a PrC either, but some should) because that means from the begining of the game you have intend to join that organization. I like that we have both, where if my fighter learns of some cool cult at level 12 I can join by taking a level of cleric for pre-reqs (or something, you get the idea) and start leveling in that then rather then saying okay I want to be a member of the pathfinder society so at level 1 I need to be class x to take this archetype.
|
|
+1PrCs should cover:
- organization membership which results in unique abilities/training. Eg: Red Mantis Assassin, Hellknight
- unique concepts that cannot be covered by a base class archetype (eg. fusions of two classes such as Battle Herald or Rage Prophet), or really off-the-wall ideas (Master Chymist)For anything else, go with an archetype.
or + platypus
or + platypus+1PrCs should cover:
- organization membership which results in unique abilities/training. Eg: Red Mantis Assassin, Hellknight
- unique concepts that cannot be covered by a base class archetype (eg. fusions of two classes such as Battle Herald or Rage Prophet), or really off-the-wall ideas (Master Chymist)For anything else, go with an archetype.
I think Platypus would require its own base class.
You can't just archetype mammal or reptile or fowl...And since they're born that way, a PrC wouldn't make sense.
Just my 2 cp.
:)
|
|
or + platypus+1PrCs should cover:
- organization membership which results in unique abilities/training. Eg: Red Mantis Assassin, Hellknight
- unique concepts that cannot be covered by a base class archetype (eg. fusions of two classes such as Battle Herald or Rage Prophet), or really off-the-wall ideas (Master Chymist)For anything else, go with an archetype.
I think Platypus would require its own base class.
You can't just archetype mammal or reptile or fowl...
And since they're born that way, a PrC wouldn't make sense.Just my 2 cp.
:)
this shows your utter lack of understanding about platypi, they were clearly never meant to be playable by PCs way too overpowered, I mean a katana pales in comparison to a platypus
Oh my!
So the BBEG being a palytpus Duskblade with a katana is too OP?
I honestly think that most organization based PrCs could be better simulated through mechanical benefits (GMG goes into these, including discounts with allied merchats, material benefits, etc) and some alternate class features (which are essentially unlocked by being an adept of the hidden mysteries of said organization).
Generic Noble Fraternity might offer the member some bonuses with fellow nobles of realm (+2 to Diplomacy, etc), the ability to hang out in the Fraternities clubhouses for low cost/free and maybe a secret handshake or two. The wizard's union might give reduced costs for acquiring spells and a variety of campaign specific spells.
Something really relevant to a large number of characters such as the Pathfinders might have a bunch of alternate class features. So rogues that are members might replace a rogue's talent with a unique talent, rangers have some increased bard like abilities, etc.
That way you don't need to design a bunch of class specific power ups that have the incidentally effect of preventing you from reaching your base class capstone.
Here's something for inspiration. :)
Kirth Gersen and Vuron, your singin' my song man! I ended up booting the Paladin and I'm considering making the Bard into a 15-level prestige class.Implying my Unearthed Arcana isn't like my favorite 3.x book ever ;)
I actually like the Prestige Bard though. He needs a lot of work to get up to Pathfinder standards and the lack of some divine healing spells means that he has to use UMD to fill the backup healer function that the core bard covers but I think it's definitely a good start.
Yeah, Unearthed Arcana is usually where players like me find some solace. :)
Not to say I'm better than anybody else, I'm just different, okay.
I'm the guy who thought rolling 4d6 for stats was blasphemy. But, I've come around since then...I had to. Now I defeat incredibly awesome monsters with equally incredibly awesome spells, but in the back of my head I'm thinking, "This is a lot like that superheroes game from the '80s."
I have to wonder what archetype bloat is going to look like. I mean how many archetypes can their be before it gets kind of silly?
I wonder what the first silly archetype will be. Maybe it's already in the APG.
Maybe round two of RPG Superstar will show us the potential and future of archetypes.
I honestly think that most organization based PrCs could be better simulated through mechanical benefits (GMG goes into these, including discounts with allied merchats, material benefits, etc) and some alternate class features (which are essentially unlocked by being an adept of the hidden mysteries of said organization).
Generic Noble Fraternity might offer the member some bonuses with fellow nobles of realm (+2 to Diplomacy, etc), the ability to hang out in the Fraternities clubhouses for low cost/free and maybe a secret handshake or two. The wizard's union might give reduced costs for acquiring spells and a variety of campaign specific spells.
Something really relevant to a large number of characters such as the Pathfinders might have a bunch of alternate class features. So rogues that are members might replace a rogue's talent with a unique talent, rangers have some increased bard like abilities, etc.
That way you don't need to design a bunch of class specific power ups that have the incidentally effect of preventing you from reaching your base class capstone.
I have to agree with this alot. I hate the idea of organization specific prestige classes. Usually the mechanical bennefit should not be restricted to one group of people, and most often feels very arbitrary.
That being said, I have no problem with requiring specific training for any given set of abilities. Certain groups know how to train in certain things, and you just can't learn them outside of them easily. Perhaps you can uncover their secrets on your own, or find a rogue element willing to train you, but if you want certain bennefits you need to have a reason to take them. Some class features I feel fall into this, like many of the mystical barbarian rage powers in the APG, and I would easily accept feats falling into this category. I would have no problems with a GM assigning setting-based restrictions on abilities, fighting styles, and player options, as long as you trust your GM to be reasonable. I think there is a heavy sentiment of player entitlement though, and if something is printed for players to use they want to use it without question far too much.
platypus is a race and a class all in one, like elves from 1ed.Oh my!
So the BBEG being a palytpus Duskblade with a katana is too OP?
Can't you see that a Platypus is playing a gestalt variant? Part duck, part beaver, all clusterf~%%.
The rRed Mantis are known for mystic powers and yep, spells. They are a cut above just assassins. They are both the worlds greatest assassins and a religious cult.
The Hell knights are not all of that PRC, but it does match the order rather well. Most Hell knights would be fighters, cavilers and some paladins thrown in as well.
Those two are the very examples of what a PRC really is.
Hm... so red mantis is a prestige class -- and assassin is a prestige class... this leads to an interesting place mathmatically:
1 = 1
Prestige class = prestige class (as a concept of prestige class)
assassin = prestige class
red mantis = prestige class
assassin =/= redmantis
prestige class =/= prestige class
So I'm seeing something wrong here...
As to the Hell Knight -- it bothers me to have an organization like this (hell knights) then have a prestige class of the same name that doesn't cover all the members. After all if they are all Hell Knights then they should all be Hell Knights. Otherwise the prestige class is absolutely useless and worse goes against the fluff of the organization it's supposed to enspouse.
I would rather have something like the organization rules from the faction guild (or 3.5 DMG2/ PHB2) for joining and being part of an organization than have prestige classes for such things. I don't mind if being part of the organization gives you some special abilities/training/whatever (and honestly think that's a good thing) but I don't want my membership in such an organization to dictate exactly what I'm going to be for my character when what it is dictating doesn't match what is possible in the fluff.
Oh my!
So the BBEG being a palytpus Duskblade with a katana is too OP?
This would have been useful information before I spent 1289258 hours building him.
sigh....
He spent days getting that platypus refinished...
you should have seen the bill....
BAM!
I have to agree with this alot. I hate the idea of organization specific prestige classes. Usually the mechanical bennefit should not be restricted to one group of people, and most often feels very arbitrary.
That being said, I have no problem with requiring specific training for any given set of abilities. Certain groups know how to train in certain things, and you just can't learn them outside of them easily. Perhaps you can uncover their secrets on your own, or find a rogue element willing to train you, but if you want certain bennefits you need to have a reason to take them. Some class features I feel fall into this, like many of the mystical barbarian rage powers in the APG, and I would easily accept feats falling into this category. I would have no problems with a GM assigning setting-based restrictions on abilities, fighting styles, and player options, as long as you trust your GM to be reasonable. I think...
Personally I think that most of the PC character classes should have "organizations" built around them. Even the average fighter has something that separates him from the generic warrior. With the advent of APG archetypes I typically think of these as "schools" even though most are informal training with someone else (mentor, drill instructor, etc).
I don't close the door to self-taught prodigies and loner characters (even though the loner types are often problem characters/players) but rather try to develop the world to reflect the character's choices and direction.
Instead of needing to become a PrC to reflect something cool and unique just being a level 1 fighter whose chosen weapon is a greatsword and who trained under so-and-so and is a veteran of the such-and-such campaign goes a long way towards making the mundane special.
Even if the mechanical benefits are small, such as getting free drinks at a specific tavern or small discounts with a specific merchant those sorts of connections to other NPCs and the setting can really add up and create a rich tapestry to work from.
By eliminating the Prestige Part of the PrC or at least transferring it to other game constructs I can focus on the elements that PrCs do really serve a purpose (spellcaster multiclassing, saves, etc) and make them more general changes to the ruleset.
See part of my problem with all this is I don't build a character to say "well even though the ability from that class is cool I can't get it because I'm class (q) even" I say "This character should have that ability because it matches the fluff for him, I'll take the levels I need to have that ability provided that the levels to that point don't interupt the flavor or fluff of the character."
Classes/Prestige classes are metagame -- abilities that match fluff no matter how they are acquired are good.
I'd like to see some of the current prestige classes fixed, and very few new ones added. Archetypes do a better job of representing most alternative character builds without messing with game balance or introducing too many new rules.
.
I think that tying prestige classes to a faction or society is a bad idea . . .
I always felt that prestige classes were a good way to offer a character some type of specialized mechanic that could not be produced with feats or skills while at the same time avoiding the gross overcrowding of an entirely new class for every concept.
+1
Prestige classes like the Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge can't be recreated with skills, feats, or archetypes. That makes them good places for PrC.
I don't think that feats, archetypes, or prestige classes need to be setting specific, and would personally prefer that they're not. On the other hand, so long as setting specific classes are written to obviously be setting-portable, it doesn't really bother me.
For example, if you're going to write up a super-cool group of magical shape-changing assassins, go ahead and call them the Red Mantis and make them all able to change into mantises. On the same page, write a paragraph stating that mystical organizations of assassins are common in mythology and many may exist in many settings - then offer a few other forms to replace mantis if it's not quite right for your chosen setting.
Hm... so red mantis is a prestige class -- and assassin is a prestige class... this leads to an interesting place mathmatically:1 = 1
Prestige class = prestige class (as a concept of prestige class)
assassin = prestige class
red mantis = prestige class
assassin =/= redmantis
prestige class =/= prestige class
Your logic is valid, but not sound. Assassin is not the same as prestige class, and red mantis is not the same as prestige class. They are both members of the group "prestige class".
You did this:
Mammal=Mammal
Bear=Mammal
Hamster=Mammal
Therefore Bear=Hamster
You did this:
Mammal=Mammal
Bear=Mammal
Hamster=Mammal
Therefor Bear=Hampster
Are you going to try and tell me bears arent hampsters?
HA now thats a strawman.
|
|
You did this:
Mammal=Mammal
Bear=Mammal
Hamster=Mammal
Therefor Bear=Hampster
Are you going to try and tell me bears arent hampsters?
HA now thats a strawman.
Does it really matter now that platypus is a playable race, who gives a rats ass about bears/hamsters, well unless your one of those, "I ROLEplay, because gimped characters who can't survive are the one true way to play DnD." types
Dang. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that:
Rock =/= Paper =/= Scissors
War =/= Peace
Tax Cuts =/= Balanced Budgets
Kirk =/= Picard
Left =/= Right, and
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt =/= John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
Does it really matter now that platypus is a playable race, who gives a rats ass about bears/hamsters, well unless your one of those, "I ROLEplay, because gimped characters who can't survive are the one true way to play DnD." typesYou did this:
Mammal=Mammal
Bear=Mammal
Hamster=Mammal
Therefor Bear=Hampster
Are you going to try and tell me bears arent hampsters?
HA now thats a strawman.
Leave the platypus out of this, its clearly broken. There is even errata on it to elimate the ability to be utterly ridiculous enough to cause things to die on sight.
I mean anyone that plays a platypus is playing the game on easy mode, and anyone that doesnt is a being stupid.
As for bears and hamsters, I think hamsters have the potential to be just as powerful as bears. Just my two cents though.
Dang. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that:
Rock =/= Paper =/= Scissors
War =/= Peace
Tax Cuts =/= Balanced Budgets
Kirk =/= Picard
Left =/= Right, and
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt =/= John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
woah woah woah...
what do you mean kirk does not equal picard?
and anyone that doesnt
OUCH, you should be more careful when you make comments about others intelligence :P
Edit: Either that or you're actually Mario
I am mario. Your post is invalid.
fun times
Pretty much but it was still fun and close and you missed an important part -- everything is supposed to have at least a rough balance -- if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.
if the red mantis is flat better than the assassin then it's not close to even and we have a problem.
Exactly. And that problem is that the Assassin PrC in the Pathfinder core rules is lame. Having ditched the spellcasting, simply making the assassin's PrC abilities into rogue talents would have been the logical next step. There's just not enough there anymore to call it a "class," much less a "prestige class."
|
|
I mostly agree with this, I just want to say that I do think that organization based PrCs shouldn't be archtypes (I also don't think every organization should have a PrC either, but some should) because that means from the begining of the game you have intend to join that organization. I like that we have both, where if my fighter learns of some cool cult at level 12 I can join by taking a level of cleric for pre-reqs (or something, you get the idea) and start leveling in that then rather then saying okay I want to be a member of the pathfinder society so at level 1 I need to be class x to take this archetype.
Agreed. The biggest problem was that most PrCs weren't something you could decide to work towards later, you had to plan on it from the very start, otherwise you'd have to wait 3 or 4 levels to enter due to feat and skill requirements.