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.
I see someone wants an one way trip to a glue factory...
They have yet to build a glue factory powerful enough to contain me!
Here're my issues with prestige classes. They take up a ton of room (2-3 pages), are used very rarely (WotC had data at one point that the vast majority of play is low level play, which is also my experience - for every campaign that makes it to 10+, there are 3-5 that don't make it past 5th level), and aren't viable for multiple classes despite the claims to the contrary (e.g., there will never be a prestige class that grants full spell progression and +1 BAB/level).
There are better ways to signify membership in an organization (feats come to mind) than prestige classes - particularly when, as described above, it's so difficult to create a prestige class that will not seriously gimp certain classes who might want to be part of the organization, but don't want to be gimped.
They're a neat idea, I really liked them at the time they were announced (believing them to be akin to Warhammers Advanced Careers), but the implementation in 3.x has not matched the potential of the mechanic. There's still some marginal use for prestige classes (the small handful of character classes, like the assassin, where only high level characters should be admitted and multi-class options that otherwise suck ass), and that probably points the way forward, but even those could be done better than through the current incarnation of prestige classes (a template-esque prestige class that swaps out abilities or makes new abilities/feats available for the former, and better multi-classing rules for the later).
I generally find these threads temporarily make me hate prestige classes less, but if Pathfinder 2e wiped them from the game, I wouldn't shed a tear.
Um.. Sebastian you do realize that the Eldritch knight gives full BAB and +1 spell level per level with only one exception right (the first level)?
Also I've not had a problem using arcane trickster, eldritch knight, dragon disciple, shadowdancer, duelist, and many other of the prestige classes.
What I like prestige classes for the most is when I want an archetypical ability on a character that isn't of a class that ability is archeypical for (such as the shadowdancering barbarian or fighter).
I can't say that I've seen anything to prove to me that the 'multiclassing' prestige classes don't work -- with the only possible except of the mystic theurge, and I'm not fully ready to throw in the towel there either.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Um.. Sebastian you do realize that the Eldritch knight gives full BAB and +1 spell level per level with only one exception right (the first level)?
Don't the pre-reqs require you to multi-class (thus losing at least one more spell casting level) prior to taking the class? I'm thinking of a prestige class that both a pure fighter and a pure wizard would want to take. Say you're got the Society of Awesome Exploring Dudes. It's a general concept, open to any character class. What does their prestige class look like? Would a wizard take the class? A rogue? A fighter? It's hard to imagine a prestige class that would satisfy all three.
Also I've not had a problem using arcane trickster, eldritch knight, dragon disciple, shadowdancer, duelist, and many other of the prestige classes.
Those are the prestige classes I think work best - they fit the advanced career concept I described.
What I like prestige classes for the most is when I want an archetypical ability on a character that isn't of a class that ability is archeypical for (such as the shadowdancering barbarian or fighter).
This is where I'd argue for some type of improved multi-classing, though I'm not sure what that would look like. The previews of 4e suggested something that would make me happy, but the implementation was, again, lacking.
The other way I could see improving prestige classes is making them 3-5 levels. Those are my favorite. They let you dip in, obtain a new archtype/theme, and then get back to your regularly scheduled character class.
I can't say that I've seen anything to prove to me that the 'multiclassing' prestige classes don't work -- with the only possible except of the mystic theurge, and I'm not fully ready to throw in the towel there either.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the multiclassing prestige classes don't work. I think they are one of the few viable uses for prestige classes. However, I also think they could be improved upon (i.e., replaced) through better multi-classing (though I'm at a loss to propose a mechanic that would achieve that end).
Ah your points make much more sense now.
I'm really not sure there is any way to do what you are suggesting with the multiclassing other than to go back to something like advanced and 2nd ed multiclassing (where one took multiple classes and divided exp among them all until they gained levels).
for every campaign that makes it to 10+, there are 3-5 that don't make it past 5th level
By the logic here, we should only have 10 levels of base classes, for few people ever reach 10.
It sounds to me, that you wanted the PRCs to be warhammers thing, and when they weren't it struck a nerve or something.
When built properly, the muticlass PrCs can be quite good. The problem is, you've gotta kinda actually figure out how you would progress. Otherwise you suffer problems.
The EK for example is very powerful If you focus a little more gish-like and less blaster type.
There was the ultimate-Magus that combined Spont and Prep arcane casters together. I used the Force Missile mage and focused on Magic missiles and amplifying them with metamagics. Every feat I took was either metamagic based or to grant me the ability to go into the PRC. In the end, I was throwing about 14 missiles of whatever element I chose that were either empower, maximized or both.
Now the big problem with WotC PrCs were the actual crap ones.
Geomancer was one. It was like the parts of two or more PRCS rolled into one to make it big enough to be a PrC. I mean seriously.. Why am I gaining Animal traits with GEOmancer and I have to be arcana and divine, and I don't really progress in my spell casting.
Some PrCs just should have had barely any requirements other than RP based requirements.. Such as the martyr of being "You die in a dramatic fashion to save someone else.." That way it would be possible to actually use without having to build up to killing your self on purpose.
in the book of 9 swords, there was this mechanic for martial adepts called 'initiator level'. unlike caster level, you added half of your total levels in other classes to your initiator level.
thus a 6th level swordsage 4th level rogue would have an initiator level of 8 and count as 8th level for all purposes pertaining to manuevers. what if we stole and tweaked that mechanic.
another idea is to use the XP tracks alongside gestalt.
single class = fast
gestalt = medium
tristalt = slow.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah your points make much more sense now.
I'm really not sure there is any way to do what you are suggesting with the multiclassing other than to go back to something like advanced and 2nd ed multiclassing (where one took multiple classes and divided exp among them all until they gained levels).
I miss 2e multi-classing sometimes! Sure, it was degenerate and bah-roken, but I really liked the multi-classed kits they started coming out with in the racial complete books.
The only thing I can think of is having more abilities key off your character level, and then watering it down if your class level does not equal your character level. For example, if you were a ftr5/wiz5, maybe you cast as a wiz 7 somehow and you have an extra fighter feat.
It would definitely be a major undertaking, and not something that I think would work well as a one-off add-on from a new book.
This thread has had the predictable result on me - I'm reminded that I actually do like the iconic prestige classes, that I'm happy with the limited number of prestige classes Paizo puts out, and I really like the options archtypes open up.
So, I grudgingly would answer yes, there is room for archtypes and prestige classes. But I still hate 99% of the prestige classes out there. Maybe I'm just bitter because the complete x books from 3.x were so chock full of stupid prestige classes. To see page after page after page wasted on material that almost no one would use annoyed me to no end and generated much of my hatred towards prestige classes that persists to this day.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for every campaign that makes it to 10+, there are 3-5 that don't make it past 5th levelBy the logic here, we should only have 10 levels of base classes, for few people ever reach 10.
That's not logic, that's straw-manning. If you want a logical extension of my claim, it would be this: more play happens below level 10 than above level 10, therefore, more material should be directed at characters level 10 and below (e.g., archtypes) than characters level 10 and above (e.g., prestige classes).
It sounds to me, that you wanted the PRCs to be warhammers thing, and when they weren't it struck a nerve or something.
I can't entirely disagree. But...
Now the big problem with WotC PrCs were the actual crap ones.
This is a large part of the problem as well.
I think PrCs should fill the spot of "Archetypes for multiclassed characters."
So things like Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, and Battle Herald are good.
So, I grudgingly would answer yes, there is room for archtypes and prestige classes. But I still hate 99% of the prestige classes out there. Maybe I'm just bitter because the complete x books from 3.x were so chock full of stupid prestige classes. To see page after page after page wasted on material that almost no one would use annoyed me to no end and generated much of my hatred towards prestige classes that persists to this day.
That's probally the biggest thing.
So far the only PrC I HATE in pathfinder, is the master chymist. Mostly because it doesn't really do anything for any other class, provide multiclass options, or really have anything prestigious about it. Its just basically "I wanted to play a barbarian.. SO i chose alchemist.
For WotC
Fleshwarper.
Needs 8 ranks of heal, and a feat that requires 10 ranks of heal.. On a class that doesn't get heal as a class skills. :/
Geomancer
Failed remake of mystic theuage. Gains ley line powers (Actual geomancy stuff there.. ) and then for some reason becomes more animal like.
Risen Martyr
You have to plan to go into this class before you die otherwise you wont' have the feats.
Too many PrCs to count
Requirement: Good. For absolutely no reason.
Truenamer
Main power is additive vs a experiential DC. Oh wait thats not a Prc..
Too many more PrCs to count..
Worthless or stupid feat taxes. I'd agree with you here, that they should look into making a slew of PrCs that have minimal requirements, especially feats, that most people could qualify for just through normal play.
Yes.
Archtypes handle a charcter concept from creation, whereas a PrC is usually a story driven change after creation.
^this. Nothing more really needs to be said. It's no secret that prestige classes are underpowered compared to staying core for 20 levels. However they are fantastic for flavor/role-play purposes in games where the GM isn't a sadist.
my only complain about Precs is that you don't get the favpred class bonus :/, I like both precs and archtypes, they give flavor to the core classes.
I would love to see PrClasses dependent on archetypes and their special abilities.
Ehhhh... I wouldn't. The idea that after buying the magic book, I have a PRC that requires me to go buy the APG really bugs me...
The key to making Decent PrCs.. is that the ONLY prereqs they should have... are ones that the class NEEDS....
Shadowdancer is a good example... I'm planning one out right now... and I need to take Combat... Something. The one that lets you have multiple AoO....
WHY does a shadowdancer NEED to make mutliple attacks of opportunity? Admittedly it's a NICE thing to have... but forcing someone to take it just to get the kit bugs me a bit...
The character is designed to be ninja/stealth rogue... THOSE are the requirements you should HAVE to have. Adding extra stuff JUST to make the classes hard to get is garbage.
I was having this discussion with a few writers who were interested in doing new prestige classes. What do you think?
I did not read the rest of the thread, so I do not know if I am just saying what other have already said, but basically there are people who prefer more prestige classes and there are people who prefer more archetypes and there are people who prefer more base classes and multi-classing with them. Fortunately, there are plenty of people for each category so that anything well written and made well will sell. I personally like all three and will take all I can get, so long as they are good quality and the newer releases are not just duplicating older material under a different name.
|
|
I really think that Prestige Classes should be few and far between and kept for things like secret orders and the like, rather than variations on a normal class that could be covered by an Archetype. For example, the Pathfinder Chronicler and Red Mantis Assassin, as opposed to Duelist (fighter or rogue archetype) or Dragon Disciple (the sorcerer's dragon bloodline pretty much already covers this concept).
Just my $0.02 anyways.
What's the point of a prestige class for a secret order if no one knows about the order to meet the prerequisites in order to join the secret order?
Sounds like a red mage character arc from 8-bit theatre.
I like prestige classes that bring something with them. If they change up a base, offer something new in and of themselves, offer an archetype role for more than one class, allow multiclassing to actually work, or offer some culture/society/group bonuses as opposed to what a 'normal' person might have.
I don't think prestige classes are obsoleted by archetypes. Rather, prestige classes can still fill the role of blending archetypes together or presenting an optional shift toward specialization that shouldn't be available at 1st level.
|
|
What's the point of a prestige class for a secret order if no one knows about the order to meet the prerequisites in order to join the secret order?
Perhaps "secret order" wasn't the right word, how about "elite society" or something like that? Even in the case of actually secret groups, they usually seek out new members, or the PCs might stumble upon them in the course of a game.
Oh, and FYI, in every PF game I've seen so far only one person has taken a PrC and that was an Arcane Archer, which grants abilities unlike what could be achieved just through core classes. Everyone else, in every game I've seen so far has taken a single class, with lots of use of the archetypes.
Here're my issues with prestige classes. They take up a ton of room (2-3 pages), are used very rarely (WotC had data at one point that the vast majority of play is low level play, which is also my experience - for every campaign that makes it to 10+, there are 3-5 that don't make it past 5th level), and aren't viable for multiple classes despite the claims to the contrary (e.g., there will never be a prestige class that grants full spell progression and +1 BAB/level).
See I love PrCs...but than I have rarely played in a game which ended at low levels. Playing a game to 5th level for me atleast I consider a failure and probably a waste of time.
In the 4 groups (that is 4 different groups with separate DMs and little over lap of players) all the game reach high levels. That would be 5 groups if you count the game I DM.
Most groups I know of that don't reach high level play are either organized play groups...or groups with DMs who are ones to be avioded. As in they don't reach high levels because the games fall apart before then...not due to planning.
As for WotC data....yup that data was the same one they used to formulate 4th ed...which in my opinion only got a very small glimpse of the gaming community as a whole...and was very focused on a certain type of gamer.
Now there are some PrCs that work a ton better as archetypes...but the majority of them from 3.5....don't quite cut it.
Not saying you are a bad DM or your players are bad for not having a long lasting game...but why screw the people who do have a long lasting game by cutting out something that makes the game better for us?
I did not read the rest of the thread, so I do not know if I am just saying what other have already said, but basically there are people who prefer more prestige classes and there are people who prefer more archetypes and there are people who prefer more base classes and multi-classing with them. Fortunately, there are plenty of people for each category so that anything well written and made well will sell. I personally like all three and will take all I can get, so long as they are good quality and the newer releases are not just duplicating older material under a different name.
This seems to be the essence. Some hate PrCs with the white-hot passion of a thousand burning suns, and others love them.
PF tweaked all the PrCs, making them more powerful, overall. They are, however, either flavor mods or multiclass combos, and are bound to vary in efectiveness depending on your campaign and your role in your party.
As long as we don't end up repeating the "take 2 levels of this, then 1 level of that for that feature, then 4 levels of that" sort of thinking that made 3X so hard to manage (or believe), then it's all good.
I have some minor quibbles with some of the PrCs in PF, but I can tweak them for my games easily enough.
As already mentioned, most games don't get to really high levels, so PrCs are more an interesting read than they are something that will see a lot of play. They're metatypes more than archetypes, and that's fine. Your EK 10/2 whatever/8 whatever should hold his own if you're a team player and you made it that far. Like any class, it's your baby. You make it work. Lose that, gain that, pick the right feats and items, and don't do things you're bad at, if you have a choice.
I particularly like the Golarion-specific PrCs, like the harrower and red mantis assassin. They're just cool, and would make great villians or allies for GMs to use. More of those, please!
Perhaps "secret order" wasn't the right word, how about "elite society" or something like that? Even in the case of actually secret groups, they usually seek out new members, or the PCs might stumble upon them in the course of a game.
Oh, and FYI, in every PF game I've seen so far only one person has taken a PrC and that was an Arcane Archer, which grants abilities unlike what could be achieved just through core classes. Everyone else, in every game I've seen so far has taken a single class, with lots of use of the archetypes.
Yeah elite society makes more sense to me.
I am not completely surprised that people like sticking to base classes now -- that was part of the design set up for pathfinder after all.
I am a bit surprised to hear that Arcane Archer was the one they went with -- I've always thought of it as trading class features for gold since many of its abilities can be replicated with magical weapons enhancements, but to each their own. I'm glad someone takes it and likes it.
|
Here're my issues with prestige classes. They take up a ton of room (2-3 pages), are used very rarely (WotC had data at one point that the vast majority of play is low level play, which is also my experience - for every campaign that makes it to 10+, there are 3-5 that don't make it past 5th level), and aren't viable for multiple classes despite the claims to the contrary (e.g., there will never be a prestige class that grants full spell progression and +1 BAB/level).There are better ways to signify membership in an organization (feats come to mind) than prestige classes - particularly when, as described above, it's so difficult to create a prestige class that will not seriously gimp certain classes who might want to be part of the organization, but don't want to be gimped.
They're a neat idea, I really liked them at the time they were announced (believing them to be akin to Warhammers Advanced Careers), but the implementation in 3.x has not matched the potential of the mechanic. There's still some marginal use for prestige classes (the small handful of character classes, like the assassin, where only high level characters should be admitted and multi-class options that otherwise suck ass), and that probably points the way forward, but even those could be done better than through the current incarnation of prestige classes (a template-esque prestige class that swaps out abilities or makes new abilities/feats available for the former, and better multi-classing rules for the later).
I generally find these threads temporarily make me hate prestige classes less, but if Pathfinder 2e wiped them from the game, I wouldn't shed a tear.
So let's sum up your reasoning:
1) Support for high level characters is a waste of space because 3/4 of the campaigns don't go above level 5.
2) You are interested only in overpowered prestige classes ( full spell progression and +1 BAB/level).
3) You seem to care for flavour class from your example in Warhammer but 1 & 2 contradict that.
4) Templates for swapping powers are the way to go for you, even if, as it has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that lock the access to those templates only to members of a single starting class.
Maybe your experience is heavily influence by your preferences in game stiles.
You claim that 3/4 or even 4/5 of all groups stop before getting to the double digits in character advancement, my experience is the exactly the opposite. In my campaigns in the last 10 years (3.0 and 3.5) we have reached level 17+ 4 times in 5 campaigns.
With about 30 player characters in them I recall only 2 players never getting a prestige class and several getting 2.
So, to me, it seem that you prefer low level campaigns and so you have no use for PrC. Decidedly different from "there is no use for PrC".
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 think one advantage Pathfinder has over 3.5 is that it is easier to get into many prestige classes.
For example, I once designed a PrC for worshippers of Luthic, the female orc deity. I conceived of it as kind of a shaman-witch class, so to get in applicants had to have a number of ranks in skills like Survival. (A Favored of Luthic has to be able to survive by herself if she has to.)
It would make a lot of sense for a cleric to go into this PrC, but difficult for a cleric in 3.5 to get enough ranks in Survival, as it is a cross-class skill. In Pathfinder, this is not a problem: a cleric can pick up X ranks as easily as anybody else.
I can see some requirements for some PrCs, but not too major. I like to have more of them to really be linked to organizations, or brotherhoods. Maybe the real requirement is for you to just cross paths with a member of the society/brotherhood/orginization. Let the GM decide when it is appropriate to gain access to the PrC.
I wouldn't mind some "either/or" requirements instead of simply "this, this, this, and this" like we currently have.
Like for shadowdancer it could be:
Stealth 5, Perform(dance) 2 or Acrobatics 2
Feats:
Combat Reflexes (or wind stance or nimble moves)
Dodge (or stealthy or skill focus(stealth))
Maybe for duelist:
Weapon Finesse (or weapon focus)
Dodge and mobility (or combat expertise and a combat maneuver)
I think prestige classes do not hold what they promise!
For almost all it is mandatory to plan for the class right at the first level, so no difference to archetypes here.
Unless archetypes trying to qualify for a prestige class often puts your character in a tight spot for quite some levels (usually 4 to 7) because the requirements you have to meet, suck.
Now you hope that by sucking for 3+ levels you are granted a lot of power, right? Wrong - witht he sole exception of possibly the dragon disciple, prestige classes are certainly more versatile but certainly also not more powerful than the base class.
So why bother with PrC when you have archetypes?
None of my groups every played a prestige class in Pathfinder after I allowed them again (banned them in 3.5).
So I am on Sebs side - waste of space.
|
I think prestige classes do not hold what they promise!
None of my groups every played a prestige class in Pathfinder after I allowed them again (banned them in 3.5).
My group tried PrC in 3e and honestly never saw a good reason to keep using them. We eventually agreed as a group to allow them if someone really wanted to use them, but no one ever did. Sticking with the core classes and multi-classing(which was rare for my group) works far better.
So I am on Sebs side - waste of space.
Totally agree and never even bother reading the sections of rulebooks that contain Prestige Classes anymore.
For me a base class, archetype of the base class or alternate to the base class is for starting as that concept from the ground up. A prestige class is more for taking you base class in a different direction during play. You can plan it out from the ground up but you play it out becoming that Prestige Class.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let's sum up your reasoning:
1) Support for high level characters is a waste of space because 3/4 of the campaigns don't go above level 5.
2) You are interested only in overpowered prestige classes ( full spell progression and +1 BAB/level).
3) You seem to care for flavour class from your example in Warhammer but 1 & 2 contradict that....
You fail at reading comprehension.
I found that PrC's in 3.0 and 3.5 were very lacking, often not meshing classes well or just plan not supporting the idea they were supposed to represent enough.
Pathfinder PrCs are better, by far...especially the Rage Prophet, to use an example. It takes the concept of a "war shaman" and blends Barabarian and Oracle, but doesn't stop there and adds other things that compliment the idea, and that make sense. IMHO, this repersents what all PrCs should be.
PrCs and Archetypes are bth are needed, if used carefully.
People saying a lot of stuff coul have been coverd by archetype and class features is right, IMHO - see the Assassin, the Shadowdancer and the Master Spy defrauding the rogue of those which are, IMHO, his natural class features or talents.
In other cases, there is a need of a prestige class. In particular, to support a specific multiclass concept (caster + noncaster generally due to multiclass rules). Rage Prophet is a nice example.
in the book of 9 swords, there was this mechanic for martial adepts called 'initiator level'. unlike caster level, you added half of your total levels in other classes to your initiator level.
thus a 6th level swordsage 4th level rogue would have an initiator level of 8 and count as 8th level for all purposes pertaining to manuevers. what if we stole and tweaked that mechanic.
another idea is to use the XP tracks alongside gestalt.
single class = fast
gestalt = medium
tristalt = slow.
I have also had this idea, as well as having different xp levels for advanced races.
I rarely do prepping as a GM, other than spending 5 or 10 minutes prior to a session and then jotting down a few sentences based on what the players did in the previous session or so while the group is getting their dice and sheets out. Doesn't matter if the group is 1st level, 5th level, 15th level, or higher, it's all the same to me. My group hates it when I plan, as the sessions get very dry RPing wise or way, WAY to tactical combat-wise.
Well if you dont do any prep then this would have less of an impact on your game, though it still applies to players getting overwhelmed with choices. But honestly if you were relying on the attrocious pregen npcs they provided in the saga books, your game is missing out on alot of interesting options for opponents. And not just in terms of combat, but roleplay as well. We have had great rp opportunities with various npcs. For instance, just imagine a villian who can make you forget you met or spoke with him and how that would impact how players interacted with the villain each time.
Actually, I just completed a Star Wars Saga campaign. I thought, still do, that the way character abilities are handled was great. The biggest issue I saw, was not so much the expansion and addition of extra talents, it appears that not enough thought was given to how well the additional talents balanced with the core talents. Far too often I saw my players make some pretty savvy chocies in regards to talents and feats, creating real nightmare characters that made it almost impossible for me to create a challenging encounter for them whether it was for combat or not.
Again if you arent preping in saga I am not surprised you couldnt challenge your players. The pregenerated enemies are pretty much garbage, and even marginally intelligent player choices will create characters that totally out class them. That is why my prep time was so high, I was building the vast majority of npcs from scratch.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not saying you are a bad DM or your players are bad for not having a long lasting game...
That's not how your message came off, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, I'm not sure of why you're setting aside organized play. Organized play is a pretty major part of Pathfinder, and, by its nature, tends to generate a ton more low level characters than high level characters. On top of that, both organized play and the APs skew towards the lower levels - I don't think I'm alone, or even in the minority, in my experience of playing more low level characters than high level characters.
but why screw the people who do have a long lasting game by cutting out something that makes the game better for us?
Huh? That's a non-sequitor. There are only so many pages in a book. Are the players who want rules on installing plumbing systems in castles being screwed because rules for that aren't included? Besides, there are more prestige classes in 3.x than you could ever hope to play. There are a few dozen archetypes, at most. Plus, I'm not saying not to put anything in for high level characters (despite repeated attempts to put those words in my mouth), I'm saying that prestige classes are a bad tool that also suffers from only supporting higher level play. Again, this isn't as much a problem in Pathfinder as it was in 3e, but the pages currently used to provide all the information necessary for prestige classes could be used to provide other (and likely more) toys and goodies for higher level play.
I found that PrC's in 3.0 and 3.5 were very lacking, often not meshing classes well or just plan not supporting the idea they were supposed to represent enough.
Pathfinder PrCs are better, by far...especially the Rage Prophet, to use an example. It takes the concept of a "war shaman" and blends Barabarian and Oracle, but doesn't stop there and adds other things that compliment the idea, and that make sense. IMHO, this repersents what all PrCs should be.
See I completely disagree with you on the Rage Prophet.
I hate it as a prestige class.
1. It is much too focused on only allowing entry by 1~2 combinations at best.
2. It's much too powerful -- you advance for rage powers, curse, revelation powers, spell casting and gain new abilities too. What's more with these new abilities it is entirely too easy to cause spell DC spikes that simply do not need to exist. When the 'average maximum DC' before a prestige class is 32~38 and after a prestige class is in the range of 50 -- that prestige class has done something wrong.
Now if it was "rage caster" and allowed more types entry into it, and was a bit different in its powers execution then I would like it -- as it stands I see it as paizo's number one failing in prestige classes.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I like prestige classes being, well, prestigious and unique.
In Unearthed Arcana they suggested various trials/rituals for some of the prestige classes, instead of prerequsites.
So, for example, an Arcane Archer would need to hit targets with X AC, with a non-magical bow. He'd also need to be able to cast Y spells, or show that he knows Z spells.
Could he make the shot without Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus, and a BAB of +6? Maybe. But if the order of the arcane archer only holds trials once a year, (or like Jeopardy, you only get one shot) then he'd better make sure he's the best at what he does. Then the 'class abilities' become 'secrets learned by the initiates'
Now the RPG arcane archer is, generic. But if you put up a web article/PDF on how they're integrated into Golarion, you make it more prestigeous again. "The Kyonnin order of the Mystic Bow is the most famous collection of Arcane Archers, though Taldor has their own chapter called..."
|
|
So let's sum up your reasoning:1) Support for high level characters is a waste of space because 3/4 of the campaigns don't go above level 5.
2) You are interested only in overpowered prestige classes ( full spell progression and +1 BAB/level).
3) You seem to care for flavour class from your example in Warhammer but 1 & 2 contradict that....
You fail at reading comprehension.
Really?
You say that and next post you are again lamenting the presence of PrC in the manuals as they take away precious space.
Huh? That's a non-sequitor. There are only so many pages in a book. Are the players who want rules on installing plumbing systems in castles being screwed because rules for that aren't included? Besides, there are more prestige classes in 3.x than you could ever hope to play. There are a few dozen archetypes, at most. Plus, I'm not saying not to put anything in for high level characters (despite repeated attempts to put those words in my mouth), I'm saying that prestige classes are a bad tool that also suffers from only supporting higher level play. Again, this isn't as much a problem in Pathfinder as it was in 3e, but the pages currently used to provide all the information necessary for prestige classes could be used to provide other (and likely more) toys and goodies for higher level play.
So what is your point? You say that you find that PrC take space that you want to be used for other things, make a disparaging comparison and suggest to use PrC that were done for a vastly different version of the game.
Then you suggest to replace them with some nebulous "other" content for higher level play.Care to make an example of the "other" content you think can be better?
For me several archetypes are useless as I will never play them and I am pretty sure no one between the people with which I play will not use them, but I don't begrudge the space used as I am aware that other people prefer other stiles of play and will like them.
You seem to think "I don't use them so no one should use them".
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So what is your point?
I dunno. You're doing a fine job making them up for me as you go along, I wouldn't want to interfere.
You say that you find that PrC take space that you want to be used for other things, make a disparaging comparison and suggest to use PrC that were done for a vastly different version of the game.
Uh...okay...
Ten you suggest to replace them with some nebulous "other" content for higher level play.
Care to make an example of the "other" content you think can be better?
Not really. I'm not a developer or rpg writer. I wasn't aware the onus was on me to back up my opinion with new rules systems.
For me several archetypes are useless as I will never play them and I am pretty sure no one between the people with which I play will not use them, but I don't begrudge the space used as I am aware that other people prefer other stiles of play and will like them.
I care, I really do.
You seem to think "I don't use them so no one should use them".
Sure, why not.
Look, I get that you want to pick a fight with me and are going to distort what I say to manufacture one. That's cute. But, seriously, this is the best you can do? Is it amateur night for trolling, or are you really just this bad at it?
I would say I'm sorry that my opinions (or, rather, your ridiculous characteratures of my opinions) threaten you so much that you feel the need to lash out at me. Except I'm not sorry. So, instead, I'll say (and here, you can quote me on this one in the next response if you so choose):
"Diego Rossi, you have a thin skin. Ask your mommy for a hug and see if that helps."
I found that PrC's in 3.0 and 3.5 were very lacking, often not meshing classes well or just plan not supporting the idea they were supposed to represent enough.
Pathfinder PrCs are better, by far...especially the Rage Prophet, to use an example. It takes the concept of a "war shaman" and blends Barabarian and Oracle, but doesn't stop there and adds other things that compliment the idea, and that make sense. IMHO, this repersents what all PrCs should be.
See I completely disagree with you on the Rage Prophet.
I hate it as a prestige class.
1. It is much too focused on only allowing entry by 1~2 combinations at best.
2. It's much too powerful -- you advance for rage powers, curse, revelation powers, spell casting and gain new abilities too. What's more with these new abilities it is entirely too easy to cause spell DC spikes that simply do not need to exist. When the 'average maximum DC' before a prestige class is 32~38 and after a prestige class is in the range of 50 -- that prestige class has done something wrong.
Now if it was "rage caster" and allowed more types entry into it, and was a bit different in its powers execution then I would like it -- as it stands I see it as paizo's number one failing in prestige classes.
I agree mechanics wise the DCs can get rediculous.
But on the idea behind PrCs, I disagree. I think they should be specific, very specific, and not allow just any old combination to qualify.|
|
I like prestige classes being, well, prestigious and unique.
In Unearthed Arcana they suggested various trials/rituals for some of the prestige classes, instead of prerequsites.
So, for example, an Arcane Archer would need to hit targets with X AC, with a non-magical bow. He'd also need to be able to cast Y spells, or show that he knows Z spells.
Could he make the shot without Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus, and a BAB of +6? Maybe. But if the order of the arcane archer only holds trials once a year, (or like Jeopardy, you only get one shot) then he'd better make sure he's the best at what he does. Then the 'class abilities' become 'secrets learned by the initiates'
Now the RPG arcane archer is, generic. But if you put up a web article/PDF on how they're integrated into Golarion, you make it more prestigeous again. "The Kyonnin order of the Mystic Bow is the most famous collection of Arcane Archers, though Taldor has their own chapter called..."
I tried something similar for a couple home-brewed PrC, but often player level progression and the possibility to get to the tourney, contact the right order of initiates at the right time and so on don't meet.
If you want some level of internal consistency your players will know well in advance what they should do to get the different PrC they want (even if the PC should learn it in game, maybe seeing someone using the PrC capabilities or hearing that "The 20 of this month at the castle of Lord Farmount the Master Archers of Taldane will have the 185° Archery contest. First prize the golden arrow and life membership in the Archers").
All well if the player have reached the right level to have a good chance and next month they are free to take part in the tourney, but if they lack several levels, are currently doing a quest and so on they could miss the chance for in game reasons and when it cam back next year they would have "wasted" several levels in a different class, almost certainly throwing away the chance to get the higher levels of the PrC.
Adjusting the events so that all the PC get the right chance at the right time stretch believability and immersion.
Doing that for some PrC can be even more problematic.
To make an example:
Knowledge Arcana DC 15: "To become a Dragon disciple you need to kill a dragon and bathe in his heart blood. You then get some of the powers of that race of dragons."
Nice story, but then you need to find the right kins of dragon and kill it. You see the good sorcerer with a gold dragon ancestor trying to find a gold dragon and kill him to get the PrC?
Say "immediate change of alignment".
I agree mechanics wise the DCs can get rediculous.
But on the idea behind PrCs, I disagree. I think they should be specific, very specific, and not allow just any old combination to qualify.
I don't mind some prestige classes that are specific but I would hate it for example if eldritch knight was only available for a wizard/fighter combination that was an elf that had to have weapon specialization in longsword.
That would kill the PrC for me.
I use prestige classes to get where my character normally couldn't for his class -- getting uncanny dodge for a fighter with shadowdancer for example, or hide in plain sight... etc.
I don't want a bunch of prestige classes that shoehorn me into a specific build.
Now that said the requirements for a prestige class should make sense for the class, and to some extent should limit what can and can't get int (for example it wouldn't make sense for a straight fighter to be able to take levels in arcane trickster). But for the most part for multi-class prestige classes like the rage prophet, eldritch knight, mystic theurge, and arcane trickster I want to be able to get into the prestige class as many ways as possible so I don't have to have:
Eldritch knight for wizard/fighter
Eldritch knight for paladin/sorcerer
Eldritch knight for barbarian/sorcerer
Eldritch knight for barbarian/oracle
Eldritch knight for witch/ranger
Etc...
It seems to me that there's four kinds of prestige class, and the conflation of them into the single mechanic is part of what causes so many different opinions.
- Prestige classes which refine a base class - These are the classes which require some specific ability, then make that ability better. Usually they can be entered from multiple classes, but they don't advance any part of the base class that doesn't help their specific ability. Holy Vindicator is an example of this type.
- Prestige classes which combine two base classes - These are the classes which require at least two abilities you can't get from a single class, and do something to improve both and usually integrate them. Often, these PrCs make an otherwise unviable combination of classes viable. Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theruge are examples of this type.
- Prestige classes which add entirely new mechanics - These are the classes which don't necessarily relate to the class you were in before at all. They grant you some new ability or abilities which only exist in the PrC and don't build on anything else. Dragon Disciple (mostly), Loremaster and Red Mantis Assassin are examples.
- Prestige classes which reflect an organization's special training - These are the classes that bring the "prestige" to prestige classes. They may be of any of the above three types, although the third is the most common. They tend to have the easiest requirements, with a "Special" clause that is the real determining factor as to whether you can get in. Hellknight, Pathfinder Chronicler, and Red Mantis Assassin are all in this category.
Type 1 PrCs can be handled as archetypes. They don't have to be, but they certainly can be. If multiple classes can gain the feature it boosts, then it makes more sense as a PrC than as an archetype for each one.
Type 2 PrCs have to be a PrC - you can build a new class which does something similar, but you're not going to have the same flexibility as implementing it as a PrC.
Type 3 PrCs could be a PrC or an entirely new base class. It really depends on how interesting their unique mechanic is.
Type 4 PrCs don't belong on the list - not every member of an organization has or wants to take levels in the organization's PrCs, and the special requirements often tie them to a specific setting, so it's harder to use them generally. In addition, the other PrCs could, in some settings, be tied to this kind of requirement as well. It might be that only the priests of the god of magic know how to combine arcane and divine casting to become a Mystic Theruge. Or it could be that anyone who puts in the effort can train themselves as a Red Mantis Assassin.
So to answer the original question, having more of #1 is interesting, but could be done with archetypes. More #2 (which you have to pre-build for) and #3 (which you can usually pick up after a level or two of prep), however, are worth having.
#4 should only exist in setting-specific books, and should probably have a sidebar with higher requirements for when they're used outside of their setting (and thus the Special doesn't apply).
Not saying you are a bad DM or your players are bad for not having a long lasting game...That's not how your message came off, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, I'm not sure of why you're setting aside organized play. Organized play is a pretty major part of Pathfinder, and, by its nature, tends to generate a ton more low level characters than high level characters. On top of that, both organized play and the APs skew towards the lower levels - I don't think I'm alone, or even in the minority, in my experience of playing more low level characters than high level characters.
Huh? That's a non-sequitor. There are only so many pages in a book. Are the players who want rules on installing plumbing systems in castles being screwed because rules for that aren't included? Besides, there are more prestige classes in 3.x than you could ever hope to play. There are a few dozen archetypes, at most. Plus, I'm not saying not to put anything in for high level characters (despite repeated attempts to put those words in my mouth), I'm saying that prestige classes are a bad tool that also suffers from only supporting higher level play. Again, this isn't as much a problem in Pathfinder as it was in 3e, but the pages currently used to provide all the information necessary for prestige classes could be used to provide other (and likely more) toys and goodies for higher level play.
but why screw the people who do have a long lasting game by cutting out something that makes the game better for us?
I was merely relating personal experience in which games end at low level. Since I have not been in a game runned by you...or your players I have no idea thus won't judge it. Though I think there are more people playing high levels games than you think....
As for organized play...it has always been a minority with in the gaming community. I know very few people who play organized events. Those that do usualy will play a home game given a chance.
As for APs...I think actualy if people are playing them alot...than the level of play will have shot up as most APs last till 15th to 17th level.
Also another thing 99% of the PrC in 3rd thru 3.5 and into Pathfinder are reachable by 6th level. 6th level is not a very high level at all.
And lastly I think everyone has areas of books that is a waste of space to them. That is the nature of the game as what you find of value is completely different from what some else does. To sell their products to the most people they have to strike a balance...which means they do need to include PrCs. And if there is a sudden demand for a system detailing castle plumbing...than even though I and you don't see a need for it I can atleast see the why it is placed there.
Was going to post something but Bobson said it better than I could.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was merely relating personal experience in which games end at low level. Since I have not been in a game runned by you...or your players I have no idea thus won't judge it. Though I think there are more people playing high levels games than you think....
*shrug* Start a thread asking how many people have made it through an AP. There have been threads like that in the past and the overwhelming majority of groups that start an AP don't finish it. It's possible they are all run by bad/lazy/poorly planned DMs, but that seems to be the way D&D is frequently played.
That said, higher level modules/support are items frequently requested, so it's also clear that a lot of people do have long running high level campaigns (though, again, I would submit that at some point during such campaigns, the players/DM will find themselves rolling up a new character for a one-off game, side game, or convention).
To sell their products to the most people they have to strike a balance...which means they do need to include PrCs.
That's debatable. Paizo has not published all that many prestige classes. The vast majority of their books don't have any. As far as I know, there hasn't been a thread here yet asking for prestige classes. The public's appetite for prestige classes does not seem that large...