I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestigue classes. What do you think?
Yes.
Archtypes handle a charcter concept from creation, whereas a PrC is usually a story driven change after creation.
|
I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestigue classes. What do you think?
I think the two serve two different functions.
Archetypes are effectively an alternate class that isn't a big enough change to warrant a re-write (such as the ninja).
Prestige Classes are either a blend of classes or present something that can't be added to a class with one or two small changes to a specific class (such as dragon disciple) yet isn't substantive enough to justify a base class.
I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestigue classes. What do you think?
Prestige classes have different functions. I personally like having both, but that's just me.
|
I never used prestige classes much. I think they have a place, but were, at one point, very overused. Archetypes do a better job of distinguishing characters with the same class from one another based on training and experience. Prestige Classes really should be reserved for special situations in which a character can multiclass due to gaining access to a prestigious situation. (i.e. when every character has a "prestige" class, there is nothing prestigious about them.)
|
I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestigue classes. What do you think?
I would like to see a few PrCs out there, the things I don't want to see are PrCs with feat/class requirements so strict that pretty much have to plan to go into the PrC at level 1 (examples being requiring feats that have several pre-req feats themselves like whirlwind attack). If you know from level one you plan to do a schtick then that's a good place for archetypes but if there are things you might decide you want to do later on in the game, that's where PrC should come in, I think that's the direction I'd like to see taken for PrCs, easy to get into at higher level that tack on options but don't require intending to go into them from level 1.
I have a couple of players going for PrCs right now. One wanted to be a sneaky wizard, the other a light-armored swashbuckler type for a mostly-urban campaign.
I tweaked the arcane trickster and duelist classes a bit, and voila, they can be what they want to be. Eventually... =P
I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestigue classes. What do you think?I would like to see a few PrCs out there, the things I don't want to see are PrCs with feat/class requirements so strict that pretty much have to plan to go into the PrC at level 1 (examples being requiring feats that have several pre-req feats themselves like whirlwind attack). If you know from level one you plan to do a schtick then that's a good place for archetypes but if there are things you might decide you want to do later on in the game, that's where PrC should come in, I think that's the direction I'd like to see taken for PrCs, easy to get into at higher level that tack on options but don't require intending to go into them from level 1.
This...
I love the 'IDEA' of PrCs.... but in all honesty, I really haven't fallen in love with any we have available right now. I've got two characters high enough to start thinking about jumping... but... nothing really stands out or seems WORTH making the switch.
I'd love for MORE Prestige classes that are a bit more 'generic' ie. NOT something that needs to be planned out from level 1.. (Played Wheel of Time... and got screwed over BIG time on crazy prereq's.... ) and stuff that isn't ONLY usuable by certain characters in certain settings... (shackles pirate, Hellknight, etc)
More stuff like the Arcane trickster please...That's kind of cool...
As for Archtypes... I LOVE those... keep them coming!!
I would like to see a few PrCs out there, the things I don't want to see are PrCs with feat/class requirements so strict that pretty much have to plan to go into the PrC at level 1 (examples being requiring feats that have several pre-req feats themselves like whirlwind attack). If you know from level one you plan to do a schtick then that's a good place for archetypes but if there are things you might decide you want to do later on in the game, that's where PrC should come in, I think that's the direction I'd like to see taken for PrCs, easy to get into at higher level that tack on options but don't require intending to go into them from level 1.
That's just the issue I had with 3.5: when my players sat down to write their characters, they'd find a prestige class that fit the concept of their character and then create their first level character to meet the PrC as quickly as possible. Of course, the prerequisits on so many of the PrC were so restrictive, that you practically had to plan for them deliberately.
I like the way Paizo has handled PrCs so far and therefore wouldn't mind seeing some more. Unlike archtypes, that are class-specific, I'd like the PrCs to be more world-specific, representing organizations and orders throughout Golarion - such as the variety of Pathfinder PrCs that are available.
Personally I dont like Prestige classes. But I dont think they are replaced by Archetypes. I think prestige classes serve a different purpose. Ofcourse there is the whole story driven changes to a character, of which I think the best example are things like the Hellknight PrC where a character would decide to become a hellknight somewhere along their career and then start moving to qualify.
But there are also the things that might be a little to specific to be an archetype, like the dragon disciple. You really need a mix of abilities to lead in the the DD, so making it into an archetype would be really complicated, maybe it's own base/alternate class but not an archetype.
So I do believe they serve a different purpose I just dont particularly care for PrCs because of my groups play style. We tend to start low and stop somewhere in the mid levels. Which means we spend alot of time where PrC's dont come into play at all, and I am not one to be willing to wait months of actual real world time for a character to start being what I want it to be. Archetypes allow you to play the character you want from day one.
For groups that play at higher levels though I think prcs are just fine, and are not completely covered by archetypes.
|
I think PrC's have their place. My feelings on the topic of should something be a PrC or a archetype is. If you can make it with a archetype and capture the feel you want, then it should go archetype. If you can't such as something like a wizard/fighter feel then it should be a PrC. The other time a PrC makes sense is when it fits the story element. Such as perhaps a wizard that goes to a magic academy that teaches magic in a very certain way.
So in short i think PrC's are needed but should only be used if a archetype can't do the concept justice.
I think making a book of PrC just to make PrC is a bad idea, at least as far as I have seen the PrC were very poor quality.
I rather see the occasional PrC in a specific context, or as a part of a chapter describing an organisation.
I think PrC's have their place. My feelings on the topic of should something be a PrC or a archetype is. If you can make it with a archetype and capture the feel you want, then it should go archetype. If you can't such as something like a wizard/fighter feel then it should be a PrC. The other time a PrC makes sense is when it fits the story element. Such as perhaps a wizard that goes to a magic academy that teaches magic in a very certain way.
So in short i think PrC's are needed but should only be used if a archetype can't do the concept justice.
I can find myself in this, I guess.. at the moment I much favor archetypes and mostly pure characters, maybe it is just 3.5 ruined it for me though.
maybe it is just 3.5 ruined it for me though.
I use to feel that way too. I love PrC's. But 30 new ones every single month was just way to nuts. I mean how many can you make with evasion. Wizards killed the PrC star.
I've gotten over that though. I've written and published a few and I've gone out of my way to make them different. And frankly I'm very very glad that Paizo has gone a different route (and now release archetypes at a much slower pace). Now they're alot more manageable.
For me, my Alchemist/Monk doesn't sound that crazy when you add archetypes to both of the classes.
I think PrCs still have their place. While archetypes are great addition to the game...they don't neccessarily replace all PrCs concepts.
For instance having converted something in the neighborhood of 15+ characters I have to say I stuck with the character build as is than switching out to a PrC for a archetype. Though sometimes I have used archtypes for the characters to enhance the concept but I never replaced a PrC by a archetype. Though some prcs are replaced by archetypes I just did not have any characters that used those PrCs.
By the way I love PrCs...and would like to see more. As long as the quality is good that is.
PrCs are great to restrict certain abilities that are too powerful for the basic character without first taking a few levels in other things. They also allow a better combination between other classes.
I currently am building a calv,bard,low-templard, battle herald. The herald is just a little too powerful for just a calv PrC, same with the low-templar.
By having them as a PrC I could also build a fighter who goes into low-templar. If it was just an archtype of calv, then I'd not really be able to take it and have a tiny dip into its awesome dirty fighting abilities. I'd probally have to take 5-6 levels before i really got anything to improve my ability to fight dirty.
Probably explained this horribly, but hopefully it gives you the idea of what I'd think would be cool.
Basically what you are describing is a very open talent system. And it works ok for very small games. The moment you start expanding them it gets very very messy, and makes building a character something of a chore. That is because there is no real structure to a character besides what you choose, everything is a choice. If there are only a few choices no big deal, but if there is a large amount, it becomes overwhelming and time consuming.
It is one of the reasons my group has almost stopped playing star wars saga edition. In that system there are a couple 'classes' which for a barebones framework for a character (BAB Defences, skills and hp). Then each level you get a talent or a feat. Feats are what they are here, and talents are like class abilities. And when there was just the first book it wasnt much of an issue.
But when the system expanded, it started becoming difficult. Abilities were spread all over the place, and it takes literally hours to go through all the books and sort out which talents make sense for your concept, and then a fair amount of time after that to actually choose between them. When we got into high levels my prep time as a dm skyrocketed making npcs.
Take your example. Imagine as a dm you needed to build an npc cleric. Imagine how much more time that would take in your system then it would to build one in the current system. Now multiply that buy the dozens of npcs that appear in a typical adventure. For a player, it becomes a hassel, for a dm its a nightmare.
I think you dealing with Prestige Class fatigue. The lack of a ritual or incantation that lets you adjust your skills and feats at an appropriate level to deal with the prestige class requirements.
I think archetypes are the new hotness and eventually we will have archetype fatigue.
Arcane Trickster.
Mystic Theurge
Holy Vindicator.
Yes prestige classes are still needed.
No, I don't think so. There are a few exceptions I like, when combining two classes like the rage prophet and battle herald do, but most of the other ones could be written up as archetypes.
The Arcane Archer? Magus archetype.
The Arcane Trickster? Bard archetype. (this one is a little iffy, I admit)
The Assassin? Rogue archetype.
The Dragon Disciple? Sorcerer archetype.
The Duelist? Fighter or Rogue archetype.
The Eldritch Knight? Replaced by the Magus.
The Master Spy? Rogue archetype.
The Shadowdancer? Rogue archetype.
The rest could probably remain similar to how they are, but I would love it if Paizo updated the above prestige classes as archetypes.
In my opinion, both are needed. Archetypes are what you train as, what you become at 1st level. A Prestige Class is what you have to earn, to develop into. Both have their place.
Cept now everyone who wants to be an assassin, has to go rogue instead of having some rangers/monks/rogues/fighters etc.
Dragaon Disciple is far too powerful to just be an archtype. Not to mention you cannot have bard DDs then or any other future Spont arcana caster DDs.
EK, now everyone has to take magus to gish it up.
Basically instead of making it so you can have a variety of characters.. you make it so that to be say, assassin, you would probably have to take 20 levels of rogue, losing out on important things like trapfinding and various other low level features of the rogue. You lose the ability to go poisoner, because the ability you get at 5th level is also replaced in the assassin archtype, thus the overall poison assassin is reduced in its ability.
There is only one PRC that i see that is anywhere close to being an archtype because it requires a specific class to play it, and just simply expands on that class. The master chymist. (You have to be a level 7 alchemist to play it. Until another class comes around that has extracts and/or mutagen that is..)
Thats the thing. Does the PrC need a specific class to play, and only that specific class? Then it would probably be better as an archtype. If its fairly generic in its creation, or combines two together than it can be a PrC.
Nature warden for example is fairly generic. Oracles, Clerics, Druids and Rangers at least can all take the class.
The Dragon Disciple? Sorcerer archetype.
No, it's really not.
The Dragon Disciple is a full BAB, high HP, combat capable PrC. Draconic bloodline Sorcerers are not even remotely.This itself throws a shadow over all your other assertions.
The rest of the legacy PrCs can probably be dumped into archetypes because they were all terrible and none of them were fixed.
I think, personally, that Prestige Classes should be reserved for things you can't easily do as archetypes. A good example of this would be merged class concepts. For example, the Thaumaturge is a good example of something you can't really do as an archetype. Until the Magus came out, the Eldritch Knight was a good example. Still is fine if you don't like the Magus's mechanics. Arcane Trickster as well.
Another thing would be Mechanics that are hard to do as an archetype. That is, a whole slew of Mechanics that build on some common thing. This one is a bit harder to point to an example of. I don't know a lot of prestige classes, I never could find any (nor did my players) that were worth the effort or entrance requirements.
I think some of the feats in the WoTC splat books would have been better handled as Prestige Classes, like the Ascetic Monk (but again, we're going back to combinations of classes getting a prestige class).
You know, honestly, I think that's all I can imagine needing a prestige class for, the merging of two or three classes as a multiclass prestige class. I would love them if they required say, 5 levels in each class, and then you got 10 levels of 'merged' class that had a capstone unique to it. It would give multiclassers something to look forward to over single classing. It's even better if the prestige class has some flexibility. Rather than Paladin/Monk, make it a Holy Monk, which can be qualified for by Paladin, Cleric, or Oracle. Rather than Wizard/Rogue, make a Mystic Rogue that can be qualified for by Wizards, Witches, Summoners and Bards (yeah yeah, I know, Arcane Trickster, hate that class).
For example, the Thaumaturge is a good example of something you can't really do as an archetype.
The Summoner is a whole class of refined Thaumaturge.
The Dragon Disciple? Sorcerer archetype.No, it's really not.
The Dragon Disciple is a full BAB, high HP, combat capable PrC. Draconic bloodline Sorcerers are not even remotely. This itself throws a shadow over all your other assertions.
It's got half BAB, but I guess the high HP is a hurdle.
It could be handled similar to how the battle sorcerer in 3.5 did. Give it the spellcasting ability of a bard (less spells and only level 6 spells), half BAB and then beef the draconic bloodline powers.
It's not impossible to do, although it might be a bit too different from the sorcerer class.
It's got half BAB, but I guess the high HP is a hurdle.The Dragon Disciple? Sorcerer archetype.No, it's really not.
The Dragon Disciple is a full BAB, high HP, combat capable PrC. Draconic bloodline Sorcerers are not even remotely. This itself throws a shadow over all your other assertions.
Ok, half BAB, but still better than a Sorcerer.
It could be handled similar to how the battle sorcerer in 3.5 did. Give it the spellcasting ability of a bard (less spells and only level 6 spells), half BAB and then beef the draconic bloodline powers.
Or you can take Dragon Disciple, double your HP, increase your BAB, and STILL get full casting if you come in from Sorcerer.
The Dragon Disciple isn't the Master Chymist version of the Sorcerer. It is a magical half-dragon class. It is a perfect example of what PrCs can and do bring to the table.
|
The Dragon Disciple? Sorcerer archetype.No, it's really not.
The Dragon Disciple is a full BAB, high HP, combat capable PrC. Draconic bloodline Sorcerers are not even remotely. This itself throws a shadow over all your other assertions.It's got half BAB, but I guess the high HP is a hurdle.
It could be handled similar to how the battle sorcerer in 3.5 did. Give it the spellcasting ability of a bard (less spells and only level 6 spells), half BAB and then beef the draconic bloodline powers.
It's not impossible to do, although it might be a bit too different from the sorcerer class.
3/4 BAB
good Fort and Will savesd12 for hp
maximum spell level (10 levels in sorcerer and 10 in dragon disciple) 8th
Something decidedly different from what you are suggesting. You cold create new class that way, but I feel that it will not be a good idea.
For sure your version isn't a refinement of the sorcerer dragon bloodline, while the Dragon Disciple is mostly that (even if it can be interesting for a bard).
The Assassin? Rogue archetype.
The Master Spy? Rogue archetype.
The Shadowdancer? Rogue archetype.
For these, I would go even further and call them "one or more Rogue Talents"; there's not even a need for a separate archetype.
I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestigue classes. What do you think?
Yes, they're necessary.
However (and it's a BIG however), archetypes have restored prestige classes to their original intent --> character concepts customized for a particular setting. In PF, that's a Red Mantis assassin, a Hellknight, etc. rather than a generic scout or a spy.
For a 3PP product, if you're developing a setting-neutral class, it's probably better served as an archetype at this point. If you're developing prestige classes for your own campaign setting, have at it.
Prestige Classes are either a blend of classes or present something that can't be added to a class with one or two small changes to a specific class (such as dragon disciple) yet isn't substantive enough to justify a base class.
I like this idea and the story driven prestige class.
The Assassin? Rogue archetype.
The Master Spy? Rogue archetype.
The Shadowdancer? Rogue archetype.For these, I would go even further and call them "one or more Rogue Talents"; there's not even a need for a separate archetype.
I vehemently disagree. The Shadowdancer especially.
I vehemently disagree. The Shadowdancer especially.The Assassin? Rogue archetype.
The Master Spy? Rogue archetype.
The Shadowdancer? Rogue archetype.For these, I would go even further and call them "one or more Rogue Talents"; there's not even a need for a separate archetype.
To be clear, I agree that there's material from those three classes that isn't appropriate as a (advanced) rogue talent, but there's no material that I like from those classes that goes beyond a (advanced) rogue talent.
The Master Spy is particularly lame.
I like prestige classes because I don't always want to get what they offer on with a class that 'normally' would enter the prestige class.
I love master spy for urban druid for example. I like shadowdancer for fighters. I like assassin for rangers -- among others.
The fact that I can take these prestige classes with something other than "rogue" or "bard" is what sells them to me.
If everything was done simply through archetypes none of what I mentioned would be possible. Either I would end up with so many archetypes for each niche character as to be impossible to keep the classes straight, or I would end up with multi-multi-multi classing like what 3.5 had going on.
With a combination of archetype and prestige classes I can better hit what I envision the character to be as a player without having to go multiclass crazy.
|
|
Archetypes have taken up a lot of the slack, true. But PrC are still useful for very specific things that, while potentially awesome, just don't have the range of base class. They can also handle story or world concepts and in the case of some classes can be part of character growth, like the warforged PrC. Eventually we'll see a bunch of PrC and they're neat but the archetypes are handling so much it's pretty impressive.
Still I'd like to see the returns of things like a Pale Master or War Weaver at some point.
I love master spy for urban druid for example. I like shadowdancer for fighters. I like assassin for rangers -- among others.
What's the name of your urban druid/master spy? What level is he?
The Master Spy is particularly lame.
I like the Master Spy. Two things about it though. One, it works better for NPCs than PCs. Unless, two, you are playing in a very specific style of game that is not catered to in the general assumption of PF, nor in the APs, nor in the Modules.
To be clear, I agree that there's material from those three classes that isn't appropriate as a (advanced) rogue talent, but there's no material that I like from those classes that goes beyond a (advanced) rogue talent.The Master Spy is particularly lame.
Absolutely disagree. I just prestiged into a Master Spy in one of my own games. The boosts to bluff and disguise are perfect for my charisma based rogue.
Things like being able to deceive truth telling magic, getting mind blank eventually, and the fool casting powers scream prestige class to me simply because they begin to move away from the core idea of rogue and blur the line with bard.
I could easily see a master spy bard rather than a rogue. And while I approached the class from the rogue path, it would be rough to have the ultimate deceiver bard that couldn't get some of the Master Spy's better abilties. I could see...deceiving truth telling magic as a rogue talent, but mind blank and assumption are way past the the basic rogue concept.
I love master spy for urban druid for example. I like shadowdancer for fighters. I like assassin for rangers -- among others.What's the name of your urban druid/master spy? What level is he?
What does it matter to you?
Currently she's an NPC. Give me a chance at a table top and I'll probably play it -- just haven't had a new game to run the combination in.
Not every niche character has to be ran immediately, and if I had a game for each character I designed immediately I wouldn't have time to post here.
The build however is as follows:
Assimar
Urban Druid 6/Assassin 1/Master Spy 'x'
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 16 Cha 16
Feats:
Weapon Finesse, Piranha strike, Iron Will, Deceptive
Skills:
Bluff, Diplomacy, Stealth, Perception, Disguise
I would also consider the same using half-elf, elf or halfling. The basic premise that has the character in the game currently is a drug addict that is being forced to use its abilities for their fixer. The irony is the fact that the character is all but immune to magical compulsion but not the physical compulsion of addiction.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Prestige classes should be shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave in the desert, right next to THAC0. There's a good idea under there somewhere, but the 3.0 execution was terrible. Pathfinder makes it better insofar as they make everything flavorful better, but for the most part, they're a waste of space. They could and should be done better.
Prestige classes should be shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave in the desert, right next to THAC0. There's a good idea under there somewhere, but the 3.0 execution was terrible. Pathfinder makes it better insofar as they make everything flavorful better, but for the most part, they're a waste of space. They could and should be done better.
I see someone wants an one way trip to a glue factory...
There are several concepts that work far better as prestige classes than they would as archetypes.
If an organization offers specific mechanical benefits, but requires a character to already be skilled in order to train her in them, then that training should be portrayed as a prestige class.
(Examples: Golarion's Hellknight, Forgotten Realms's Red Wizard)
Likewise, a concept that offers specific mechanical benefits to a character that has been trained in several different ways should be portrayed as a prestige class.
(Examples: Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge)
However, any concept that could conceivably be portrayed as something the character trains for from the start should be portrayed either as a full class or as an archetype.
As long as those basics are more-or-less adhered to, both prestige classes and archetypes have their specific, and needed, niches.
The Dragon Disciple isn't the Master Chymist version of the Sorcerer. It is a magical half-dragon class. It is a perfect example of what PrCs can and do bring to the table.
Yep basically.
Master chymist is currently the one prc that sticks out like a sore thumb. (how is its bomb handling even going to work with new archtypes that lose bombs?)
But the Dragon Disciple is quite capable with both bards and sorcs and any other class that is spontaneous arcane spell casting. Limiting to just sorcs causes it to become shackled down.
Same with every PrC other than the chymist.
The fact that any class can take most PrCs but only one class can take an archtype..
|
|
I think that with the Pathfinder archetypes added to the existing PrCs most of the generic ground is covered. The bow fanatics totally go for it. The only PrCs which I'd like to see are ones which add specific world color such as the Red Mantis Assassin and Pathfinder Chronicler.
Speaking more generally, over the years the only PrC I've ever actually seen played is the Arcane Archer. Really. Just that one. The bow combat types love it. On the other hand, my players went wild over the archetypes. Almost every one of them immediately switched over to an archetype (the characters were only 2nd-3rd level at that point). So, based on my personal gaming experience (YMMV), archetypes are where it's at right now.