|
The thing I dislike the most about PrCs is the way they handle BAB.
They could've said BAB progresses as per x class...
As it is, unless your original class is at full BAB and the PrC is at full BAB, you are always going to lose at least 1 BAB for taking the PrC. One could say "well that's the price you pay". O RLY?
I'd think the price would be specializing and taking the skill ranks, feats, class abilities required to get into the PrC in the first place.
For a martial/melee character, that 1 less BAB is a hell of a price to pay.
Honestly, this is why I think the paragon paths and epic destinies were a good idea from 4E. They didn't break level progression, but let you specialize. Archetypes are a similar concept.
The problem isn't bloat per se, but bloat in the context of the PrC as society question.
The point of connecting a PrC with a society is creating non-mechanic or plot or setting-based limits, bounds, and channels. There's no bloat, because there are exactly as many PrCs as the players want, the DM can deal with, the setting requires, et cetera.
Right off the bat, however, that got tossed out the window (especially with the OGL material) in a sort of race to the bottom. PrCs became just one more choice, a standardized advanced class, almost to the point that it was a given everyone would choose one...which isn't necessarily a bad way to do things, but when mixed with bloat becomes positively disastrous, or at least annoying.
Honestly, this is why I think the paragon paths and epic destinies were a good idea from 4E. They didn't break level progression, but let you specialize. Archetypes are a similar concept.The thing I dislike the most about PrCs is the way they handle BAB.
They could've said BAB progresses as per x class...
As it is, unless your original class is at full BAB and the PrC is at full BAB, you are always going to lose at least 1 BAB for taking the PrC. One could say "well that's the price you pay". O RLY?
I'd think the price would be specializing and taking the skill ranks, feats, class abilities required to get into the PrC in the first place.
For a martial/melee character, that 1 less BAB is a hell of a price to pay.
This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.
Archetypes can't cover everything done with a PrC, true.
RP entry requirements might be able to be fulfilled in a 1st level character's background. Depends on what it is.
With the advent of archetypes, the need for oodles of PrCs (if need is the right word) is greatly diminished.
Campaign specific stuff probably should be done with a PrC, it just should be set up as more of a reward than a penalty.
[
Honestly, this is why I think the paragon paths and epic destinies were a good idea from 4E. They didn't break level progression, but let you specialize. Archetypes are a similar concept.
Leading off this, it might be fun to rework PRC's as kinda high level archetypes that replace , well archetype and class ablitys,
For example, master sniper that only could be taken by someone with the sniper or archer archetypes. Something that starts at like 8th level or what ever is apporate for the ablitys and replaces class ablitys to something more focused.
|
I've never been very interested in PrCs, since most seemed to be too narrowly focused to be usable by PCs. Pathfinder has dodged the bullet of PrC overkill with the APG: six new "base" classes and the excellent archetypes. Brilliant! No need to buy 46 splat books to add variety to the original core class lineup. The APG is probably the most valuable gaming book I've ever bought.
I always thought that a good number of the 3.5e PRCs were really more suitable to being some high level feat trees. The only ones that seemed needed were the hybrids. Assassins (as per the PFRG) could be some high level feats & rogue talents.
The art for it in the adventure path is part of what sells it (and isn't here), but: here
Ok...which book is this PrC in. It sounds cool.
Is there a snippet of it anywhere I wont have to buy a book to see it?Thanks DM...
damn web blocker. I'll have to look at it when I get home.
Ok...that is pretty friggin sweet.
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.
Can I throw in some dissent to this? While the capstones are really quite nice, a normal PF campaign ( i.e. one they published ) will never let PC's reach that level, so that any player with something of a brain will lose the capstone incentive.
This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.
Not in all cases.
Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.
And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.
wouldnt blade singer be a bard archetype?
something about signing....
This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.Not in all cases.
Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.
And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.
Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:
I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.
Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:
I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.
Oh, I don't disagree! But archetypes define a character from the beginning of their career. Good as the variability is, it means that feat and skill choices are the only real choice they can make -- and the same feats and skills are available to any character.
I liked, and like, prestige classes because they add possibilities later in an adventurer's career. Often, a player will plan to aim towards a particular prestige class from the very beginning, but at least you have that option and can potentially shift paths if you choose.
Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:
I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.
Oh, I don't disagree! But archetypes define a character from the beginning of their career. Good as the variability is, it means that feat and skill choices are the only real choice they can make -- and the same feats and skills are available to any character.
I liked, and like, prestige classes because they add possibilities later in an adventurer's career. Often, a player will plan to aim towards a particular prestige class from the very beginning, but at least you have that option and can potentially shift paths if you choose.
Well I suppose that depends on your GM but I dont see why an ability such as Skirmisher (ranger archetype that eliminates spells) could just be taken WHEN the ranger would have gained spells.
Some archetypes I agree define you throughout your levels, but then again so does a base class...
EDIT: let me make it clear that prestige classes I like its the prerequisite to get in concept I dont like at all. It basically requires you to do the same as rooting your class from the start.
Now if it just had really easy prerequisites that suit the class with a slightly more specialized power class (meaning their abilities work less often or in specific circumstances but are equal in power) then I would get on board but alot of prestige classes dont do this.
This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.Not in all cases.
Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.
And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.
Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:
I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.
wait...im feeling really dumb, but you can take MORE than one archetype??
From what I've seen around the boards, it appears that is the case. Archtypes seem more like variant class features rather than alternate base classes.wait...im feeling really dumb, but you can take MORE than one archetype??This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.Not in all cases.
Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.
And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.
Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:
I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.
I have visions of a druken zen archer being the funniest thing ever! (oops sorry for shooting you in the butt my friend, I thought you were a turkey!)
Why all the hate for prestige classes? I never ever used them in 3.5 (we never used splat books either) with the exception of assassin or black guard for NPCs.
Quote pyramid:From what I've seen around the boards, it appears that is the case. Archtypes seem more like variant class features rather than alternate base classes.wait...im feeling really dumb, but you can take MORE than one archetype??This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.Not in all cases.
Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.
And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.
Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:
I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.
I have visions of a druken zen archer being the funniest thing ever! (oops sorry for shooting you in the butt my friend, I thought you were a turkey!)
Unfortunately, you can't do that:
A character can take more than one archetype and
garner additional alternate class features, but none of
the alternate class features can replace or alter the same
class feature from the core class as another alternate
class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both
a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both
modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the
aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however,
be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy
light, since none of their new class features replace the
same core class feature.
Since Zen Archer and Drunken Master both replace Still Mind, Purity of Body, and Diamond Body, you can't be both.
You can use this spreadsheet to determine whether two archetypes (or alternate racial traits) are compatible with each other.
Since pathfinder, I use Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge and dragon disciple to great effect, none of them could be done with simple archetypes.
Honestly Pendagast, some kind of archtype would probably cover the Mystic Theurge better than the current rules. Possibly trading away your Wizard class stuff (not even generalist) in exchange for access to cleric spells. (A clerical version would be a lot harder to make, because the basic chassis of the cleric is a lot better than the wizard.)
and dragon disciple?
Yeah, PF Dragon Disciple is a pretty cool PrC. A base class might do it better, because stat distribution for a DD is significantly different from a standard sorcerer, but I doubt an archtype could really cover it.Honestly Pendagast, some kind of archtype would probably cover the Mystic Theurge better than the current rules. Possibly trading away your Wizard class stuff (not even generalist) in exchange for access to cleric spells. (A clerical version would be a lot harder to make, because the basic chassis of the cleric is a lot better than the wizard.)and dragon disciple?
actually a 3/4 bab base class that was a shape shifter that gave you some archetypes to choose from (dragon archetype being one of them) would be pretty sweet.
|
Why all the hate for prestige classes? I never ever used them in 3.5 (we never used splat books either) with the exception of assassin or black guard for NPCs.
Speaking for myself, I gained a sizeable distate for them from 3.0 and 3.5, where they were quite blatantly used as filler in pretty much every single book published by WotC during that edition. There were almost 800 prestige classes published between 2000 and 2008. That goes beyond bloat.
It also didn't help my opinion of them that almost all of them were so ultra-specialized that almost nobody would actually be interested in playing them. Do we really need a class that is expecially good in battle against fire elementals while underground on Tuesdays?
Why all the hate for prestige classes? I never ever used them in 3.5 (we never used splat books either) with the exception of assassin or black guard for NPCs.Speaking for myself, I gained a sizeable distate for them from 3.0 and 3.5, where they were quite blatantly used as filler in pretty much every single book published by WotC during that edition. There were almost 800 prestige classes published between 2000 and 2008. That goes beyond bloat.
It also didn't help my opinion of them that almost all of them were so ultra-specialized that almost nobody would actually be interested in playing them. Do we really need a class that is expecially good in battle against fire elementals while underground on Tuesdays?
I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today!
This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.
Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.Not in all cases.
Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.
And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.
You could easily make a magus archetype that did this...