When I jumped into Pathfinder, I was hoping to get my "3.5e crunch fix" from Paizo. Which I have been getting a lot, thankfully.
However, I am concerned at the sudden washing away of Prestige Classes. Many of us enjoy using prestige classes, still. Why does it feel like this concept is abandoned?
Building a character towards something is fun for my players. They also enjoy the fact that a prestige class may or may not be built towards a specific class in mind, but in both cases, as long as you met the prerequisites you can enter it as you wish. Whether a Wizard/Assassin or a Paladin/Horizon Walker, it didn't matter.
I have been noticing this rise in "Archetypes". They're cool and interesting and easy to implement, but I feel they've been hogging away the spotlight from prestige classes too much. In fact, many archetypes I see would've been a lot better if they were built as prestige classes. A couple of cons of archetypes is:
1) They only apply to ONE class
2) It's an "all or nothing" mechanic, and would've been a lot better if they were alternate class features to cherry pick from, and not lock yourself out of a class feature you wanted to keep for your class just to grab a class feature from the archetype you wanted take; there's no customization!
3) Lack of accessibility and flexibility
My prime example is the "Gunmage" archetype for Ultimate Combat. It's only for Wizards? This sounds like it would've been a lot more accessible if it was a prestige class for spellcasters, that way a sorcerer or magus can play as a "Gunmage" character.
Another example is my player wants to make a Rogue and really only wants one ability from the "Rake" archetype, and doesn't want to give up the other. Problem is, archetypes are all or nothing. So, instead, him (and other players) have shied away from a tightly constricting mechanic that forces you to give up flexibility.
Quite a number of other archetypes would have made great prestige classes. Prestige classes are also good for dipping. If you're fine with 5 levels of it, then you're done. If you want 8 levels, go for it. If only 2 levels, more power to you. Archetypes, again, fail to give this kind of flexibility.
Personally, I was really hoping for more prestige classes in Ultimate Magic, and it didn't happen. I now realize Ultimate Combat will not have any, either, which is pretty whacky if you ask me.
Unless Paizo is coming out with a "Book of Prestige Classes" sometime in the near future, I will just continue to express disappointment on these forums at the lack of them. I was thrilled to see more in the APG, but why stop there? I don't understand if I missed some kind of online vote that polled if we want more Archetypes in place of PrC?
The folks at Paizo hate prestige classes. They also hate multiclassing. Neither option will get much support because they feel that sticking with one base class should be enough. I have mixed feelings on this.
I love prestige classes, and multiclassing; rare is the character I design that doesn't at least dip into some other class, or work towards a prestige class. That's one of the best aspects of 3.5/pathfinder, IMO. It saddens me that they intentionally ignore these options. There are plenty of feats and prestige classes in 3.5, but I'm finding a that many pathfinder DM's are following a disturbing trend of only allowing pathfinder material, and robbing the game of many good options.
That being said, I'm happy that they are trying to make base classes more attractive to stick with; some are better than others, but they are trying. I just wish they would show some love to their customer base that likes prestige classes and multiclassing.
I think Paizo did a great job revamping the 3.5 PrCs in two ways: They improved them all (whether or not they did enough is another question), and the retooling of the skill system made multiclassing and PrCs much better. A single level of rogue, for example, can give a character full ranks in any rogue skill, whatever other class(es) they have.
I believe they are focusing on offering Archtypes as an alternative to PrC's/Multiclassing
considering the purpose of a PrC is to repurpose an exiting class and make it do something differen't , archtypes seem to forfill this role more effectively than having to write up an entire new class you simple adjust the bits you want to change.
I mean consider the Eldrich Knight
you could quite easily make a Fighter Archtype called Eldrich Knight that swaps armour and weapon training for spell training or similar
Personally, I vastly prefer archetypes to Prestige Classes. The emphasis on Prestige Classes in 3.5, along with the multiclassing system in general, often made it impossible to play certain character concepts until very high levels.
Now, with the preponderance of ACFs in late 3.5 and the archetypes in Pathfinder, you can play a much wider variety of character types from 1st level and Prestige Classes exist mostly to patch up the holes in the multiclass rules.
You could also look into the companion books for PrCs. I know quite a few of the books get a prestige class in them, from the evil ones in the Books of the Damned, to the setting specific ones, like the Living Monolith from Osirion
I believe Paizo is trying to make the core game use base classes and archetypes... with a few iconic prestige classes. So for the PFRPG there is not really intended to be very many prestige classes.
The vast majority of prestige classes are left for campaign world specifics and, while they have mechanical changes, the main concept is RP based more then a class is. IE Harrower, Mantis Assassin, Hellknight, etc.
I must say I'm disappointed as well. I understand that Paizo is trying to shy away from prestige and emphasize playing a class 1-20, but we like options! Even if its only prestige classes along the line the Battle Herald, Arcane Trickster, and Rage Prophet (Enabling multi-class concepts to actually have something cool and unique!) it would be much appreciated. Perhaps try modeling some prestige classes around the Dragon Disciple. It accentuates an aspect of the main class, and still allows you to reach the capstone ability of the sorcerer. (Although you do lose some casting ability; we expect these kinds of trades for new power.)
...and like the OP is saying, its nice to be able to multiclass and take prestige class to great effect. I know y'all at Paizo dislike people multi-classing and adding prestige classes for min-max purposes, but is that really so bad? Just make sure to give us balanced options. We will be giving up capstones and other sweet abilities along the away. Honestly, I doubt that any amount of prestige class options (produced by Paizo) would make sticking to a base class obsolete by comparison. With all of the advantages given to base classes, sticking with a base class to level 20 will always be a smart and justifiable option. So what's the problem?
I just don't see what's wrong with giving players the customizable-ness that is prestige classes. Try throwing us a bone some time. :'(
You could also look into the companion books for PrCs. I know quite a few of the books get a prestige class in them, from the evil ones in the Books of the Damned, to the setting specific ones, like the Living Monolith from Osirion
Also true. Classes like the harrower. low templar and red mantis assassin are flavorful setting-specific PrCs.
I think what people got sick of was all the level-dipping for various exploits. You shouldn't need levels in 6 classes to have a great character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I vastly prefer archetypes to Prestige Classes. The emphasis on Prestige Classes in 3.5, along with the multiclassing system in general, often made it impossible to play certain character concepts until very high levels.
I like both, to be honest. Each has a place in the game; archetypes allow the base classes to be modified to better fit a concept. Prestige classes to the same thing, except they offer this customization after the game has started. This allows characters to be (potentially) more fluid; perhaps some event happened in game to make the wizard start to appreciate the usefulness of sword training, and so he eventually becomes an Eldritch Knight. The only downside to many of the prestige classes was the amount of pre-planning that was required; characters had to be planned out from the get go, rather than allowed to grow organically into a prestige class.
Prestige classes entry requirements should be revamped so that getting into is special, but at the same time not specific; For dragon disciple, perhaps the requirement should be bathing in the hearts blood of a dragon you killed in combat, or some such. Rather than a narrow and specific line of feat requirements, a prestige class might require specific side quests.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The folks at Paizo hate prestige classes. They also hate multiclassing. Neither option will get much support because they feel that sticking with one base class should be enough. I have mixed feelings on this.
Not true.
I'm a folk at Paizo, and I quite like multiclassing AND prestige classes. I put four prestige classes into the Inner Sea World Guide, and we periodically do them in Pathfinder Adventure Path. I put a prestige class into the last book I wrote for Paizo ("Lords of Chaos"). There's two more coming in "Inner Sea Magic" due out at Gen Con. The PC I chose to put into the "NPC Guide" in the Paizo PCs chapter is multiclassed. Many of the bad guys in adventures I develop are multiclassed. The most important NPC in the upcoming Jade Regent AP is multiclassed.
The fact is, though, that there IS a relatively large outcry against more prestige classes, and that outcry is in fact coming from the customers. We listen to the folks who buy our games, and there's been a quite vocal opinion here and on other boards that, by the time 3.5 drew to a close, a lot of people were tired of prestige classes.
Now, if enough time has passed since then that the appetite for prestige classes is returning... cool! We'll react by putting more into print. Of course... the time lapse between us seeing a new demand for prestige classes and the point where they start appearing frequently in print again isn't insignificant...
...but I just wanted to point out that Paizo is not against multiclassing or prestige classes. One of the main design goals of Pathfinder was to make the base classes viable from 1st to 20th level, but that doesn't also mean we hate prestige classes. It just means we want the base classes to be worth it from start to end... otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I like the approach Paizo is taking on PrC's. They are making them heavy on fluff and tied to world setting. Which to me makes sense. They have a few generic PrC's but the rest are all tied to the setting. Which is how I would rather see it. Now I wouldn't mind seeing some more PrC's in some of the campaign books though.
Actually I like the approach Paizo is taking on PrC's. They are making them heavy on fluff and tied to world setting. Which to me makes sense. They have a few generic PrC's but the rest are all tied to the setting. Which is how I would rather see it. Now I wouldn't mind seeing some more PrC's in some of the campaign books though.
I like this too. My only issue with it is that world specific prestige classes have to be adapted if not used for that world; some DM's don't use Golarian, and some are rather close minded about setting specific options; I know a few DM's that refuse to allow a Forgotten Realms prestige class into their Eberron games.
I'd much rather the prestige classes be generic enough to not be tied to a specific setting, while still retaining flavor.
This whole conversation comes down to customization. We all want to customize, but the problem comes up that when you add more choices, the harder it is to balance the game. That is why the dipping problem got worse as the amount of 3.5 material got larger. You could always find some new prestige class that added a gamebreaking mechanic to a campaign. I love customization for the purpose of variety and personality. I am against customization for the purpose of min/maxing.
The folks at Paizo hate prestige classes. They also hate multiclassing. Neither option will get much support because they feel that sticking with one base class should be enough. I have mixed feelings on this.Not true.
I'm a folk at Paizo, and I quite like multiclassing AND prestige classes. I put four prestige classes into the Inner Sea World Guide, and we periodically do them in Pathfinder Adventure Path. I put a prestige class into the last book I wrote for Paizo ("Lords of Chaos"). There's two more coming in "Inner Sea Magic" due out at Gen Con. The PC I chose to put into the "NPC Guide" in the Paizo PCs chapter is multiclassed. Many of the bad guys in adventures I develop are multiclassed. The most important NPC in the upcoming Jade Regent AP is multiclassed.
The fact is, though, that there IS a relatively large outcry against more prestige classes, and that outcry is in fact coming from the customers. We listen to the folks who buy our games, and there's been a quite vocal opinion here and on other boards that, by the time 3.5 drew to a close, a lot of people were tired of prestige classes.
Now, if enough time has passed since then that the appetite for prestige classes is returning... cool! We'll react by putting more into print. Of course... the time lapse between us seeing a new demand for prestige classes and the point where they start appearing frequently in print again isn't insignificant...
...but I just wanted to point out that Paizo is not against multiclassing or prestige classes. One of the main design goals of Pathfinder was to make the base classes viable from 1st to 20th level, but that doesn't also mean we hate prestige classes. It just means we want the base classes to be worth it from start to end... otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.
I'm really glad to hear this. It gives me hope that eventualy we shall see more options for multiclassing and prestige classes. I enjoy the new archetypes, and appreciate the idea of making base classes strong from start to finish.
But prestige classes hold a special place in my heart. One of my favorite goals as a character is entering into a prestige class; it helps give me something to shot for, and helps distinguish my character from others with the same class.
This whole conversation comes down to customization. We all want to customize, but the problem comes up that when you add more choices, the harder it is to balance the game. That is why the dipping problem got worse as the amount of 3.5 material got larger. You could always find some new prestige class that added a gamebreaking mechanic to a campaign. I love customization for the purpose of variety and personality. I am against customization for the purpose of min/maxing.
This is very true; near the end of 3.5, it got out of hand. But it all comes down to individual DM's and players sitting down and hashing out limits. The same amount of dipping can be performed with the base classes and the new archetypes; I've seen some horrible combinations, and have tried a few myself. Prestige classes aren't really that much different.
NOTE: This post didn't see James Jacob's response so doesn't take that into account. I'm leaving it as I think some players share the opinions ascribed to Paizo.
The folks at Paizo hate prestige classes. They also hate multiclassing. Neither option will get much support because they feel that sticking with one base class should be enough.
I'm both glad and happy about this. I think 3.5e was ridiculous in the amount of multiclassing that went on. In Pathfinder I haven't had a single character multiclass. That said, I do have a barbarian I plan on multiclassing. This is because I want to limit his supernatueral abilities for a couple of levels. I could have done that without multiclassing, but the character works out better if I actually do multiclass.
The reason I haven't multiclassed before my barbarian is because I haven't found a prestige class that fit in with my character concept. I still haven't, but I did find a two class combination that worked.
Because people dip into a prestige here and a prestige there to grab a bunch of abilities that were never meant to be together. Next thing you know people are breaking campaigns.
I do have a halfling bard in Pathfinder Society that will be mutliclassing into 3 prestige classes (2 levels into one, 1 level in the other two). This is because I'm making him a melee fighter and I've got a pretty big handicap with him having a negative strength modifier and being a bard. I made him a bard because he was an Andoran hero's squire who died, and so he is taking up the fight himself in honor of his knight. He believes in all of the propaganda of the Pathfinders and considers himself the epitome of what it means to be a Pathfinder.
I'm multiclassing into 2 Pathfinder (the organization) prestige classes, not because they're good, but because they're flavourful. The third prestige class is Student of War which many Pathfinders multiclass into.
I think you can make characters that multiclass for flavourful reasons, rather than for optimising. I think Paizo shouldn't abandon that facet of the game.
I like the archtypes, but I also like Multi-classing/PrCing as well.
My biggest beat with Archtypes though is the all or nothing they do. Especially since so many of them modify the same thing over and over so none of them stack or are cherry pickable.
With the new book we have the vivisectionist and the Re-animator. Both of these archtypes would have gone good together (flavor wise), but since both alter bombs.. We lose out.
Then so many feats don't work if you take an archtype either. Such as almost everything summoner based requires the basic version of Eidolon.
For me PrCs where always somewhat of a goal for my characters, or the finished the concept. Some amount of cherry picking is necessary in this game, not just for power-gamers but also conceptialists.
The folks at Paizo hate prestige classes. They also hate multiclassing. Neither option will get much support because they feel that sticking with one base class should be enough. I have mixed feelings on this.Not true.
I'm a folk at Paizo, and I quite like multiclassing AND prestige classes. I put four prestige classes into the Inner Sea World Guide, and we periodically do them in Pathfinder Adventure Path. I put a prestige class into the last book I wrote for Paizo ("Lords of Chaos"). There's two more coming in "Inner Sea Magic" due out at Gen Con. The PC I chose to put into the "NPC Guide" in the Paizo PCs chapter is multiclassed. Many of the bad guys in adventures I develop are multiclassed. The most important NPC in the upcoming Jade Regent AP is multiclassed.
The fact is, though, that there IS a relatively large outcry against more prestige classes, and that outcry is in fact coming from the customers. We listen to the folks who buy our games, and there's been a quite vocal opinion here and on other boards that, by the time 3.5 drew to a close, a lot of people were tired of prestige classes.
Now, if enough time has passed since then that the appetite for prestige classes is returning... cool! We'll react by putting more into print. Of course... the time lapse between us seeing a new demand for prestige classes and the point where they start appearing frequently in print again isn't insignificant...
...but I just wanted to point out that Paizo is not against multiclassing or prestige classes. One of the main design goals of Pathfinder was to make the base classes viable from 1st to 20th level, but that doesn't also mean we hate prestige classes. It just means we want the base classes to be worth it from start to end... otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.
Thanks for taking the time. I love that about you guys.
The pendulum swung heavily toward prestige classes in 3.5 and players threw up their hands in frustration. ...now it seems the pendulum has swung the other way, and us fickle players are beginning to long for our former masters. As much as I would love to work for Paizo, I'm not sure I'd like to be the one to bear the brunt of criticism for every design choice made. No matter what you do, someone is going to complain. ...and apparently I'm just another one of those complainers.
Good luck, James and the rest o' y'all. Just don't screw up. ;)
Working with the DM can help, but there is always the issue of players pushing for more power for their characters, versus the need of the DM to keep the campaign balanced. I would like to see a system that has customization with built in limits that let players choose what they want without greatly exceeding AC, skill, attack and damage thresholds that can break games. I think as we go along, we will see the same problems with archetypes as we will with Prestige Classes.
|
I believe they are focusing on offering Archtypes as an alternative to PrC's/Multiclassing
considering the purpose of a PrC is to repurpose an exiting class and make it do something differen't , archtypes seem to forfill this role more effectively than having to write up an entire new class you simple adjust the bits you want to change.
I mean consider the Eldrich Knight
you could quite easily make a Fighter Archtype called Eldrich Knight that swaps armour and weapon training for spell training or similar
While Archetypes do fulfill a role of retooling a class to fit a concept, they utterly fail once play has begun. Unless a group is running a prestructured Adventure Path, a lot of homebrew games will see a great amount of change in the nature of their campaign over play.
So, while an Archetype works great for adding some cool flavor at level 1, it completely fails to allow a player to refocus his character at a later level. That is where Prestige Classes come into play.
A Prestige Class is great for restructuring your character to fit the direction a game is going. They are great for focusing a game and group once play has begun.
Because people dip into a prestige here and a prestige there to grab a bunch of abilities that were never meant to be together. Next thing you know people are breaking campaigns.
Do realize however, I do not need to PrC this or that to break a campaign. Simply all I have to do is play a wizard. Sometimes you don't even have to play an optimized one, playing an unoptimized wizard can be just as campaign breaking as making an optimized one.
how?
It all depends on the DM. Too many DMs take tons of time to lay down track and the moment someone says "Hey what is that over there?" the train derails and the campaign is broken. Like wise the Dm could expect a certain wizard in his group to be more wizardly like and less rune soldier like...
The largest thing that breaks campaigns is not bad players, but bad DMs.
While Archetypes do fulfill a role of retooling a class to fit a concept, they utterly fail once play has begun. Unless a group is running a prestructured Adventure Path, a lot of homebrew games will see a great amount of change in the nature of their campaign over play.
So, while an Archetype works great for adding some cool flavor at level 1, it completely fails to allow a player to refocus his character at a later level. That is where Prestige Classes come into play.
A Prestige Class is great for restructuring your character to fit the direction a game is going. They are great for focusing a game and group once play has begun.
Unless the prestige classes were homebrewed, how could any player possibly be able to change mid-campaign to go in a new direction with a prestige class. In my experience they only way to make prestige classes work is to plan there use at the very first stages of creation. Even with the increase in feats in Pathfinder it would probably still mean a level or two loss in a base class to fit into a new prestige class.
|
|
BTW there are at least 29 PrCs out there, mostly in the Campaign Setting books. Personally I feel PrCs should be derived more from setting and am very happy with them being in the Setting books and not the Core books.
I imagine there are more, but those 29 are the ones I could fine quickly and easily online.
|
|
Unless the prestige classes were homebrewed, how could any player possibly be able to change mid-campaign to go in a new direction with a prestige class. In my experience they only way to make prestige classes work is to plan there use at the very first stages of creation. Even with the increase in feats in Pathfinder it would probably still mean a level or two loss in a base class to fit into a new prestige class.
Well, I have played many characters in 3.x that I would retool in mid-game with PrCs. Sometimes by using several PrCs to get the feel I want.
Most PrCs do not really need to be aimed for from 1st level. Usually at most it would take me a level or two to focus in on a PrC and get it. Does the level or two ultimately hurt me? No, because it did focus my skills and abilities toward my ultimate goal anyway.
I often play games that run up to level 20 or higher. It is not unusual for me to get around level 7 and decide to refocus and take a PrC around level 10, then get a tighter focus and take another at level 15. None of the PrCs were even considered at creation. It's not a big deal at all.
The ONLY problem I have found with PrCs is that as you narrow your focus you run the risk of becoming a one trick pony. If a GM throws something at you from left field, you are so screwed.
Now, in Pathfinder, I have not used any PrCs at all because I like the base classes so well I don't even want to multi-class. There is just so much fun stuff to play with in each base class I could be happy for years before ever planning on doing a PrC. Those capstone powers are just too much fun, I don't want to loose them.
Well, I have played many characters in 3.x that I would retool in mid-game with PrCs. Sometimes by using several PrCs to get the feel I want.
Most PrCs do not really need to be aimed for from 1st level. Usually at most it would take me a level or two to focus in on a PrC and get it. Does the level or two ultimately hurt me? No, because it did focus my skills and abilities toward my ultimate goal anyway.
I often play games that run up to level 20 or higher. It is not unusual for me to get around level 7 and decide to refocus and take a PrC around level 10, then get a tighter focus and take another at level 15. None of the PrCs were even considered at creation. It's not a big deal at all.
The ONLY problem I have found with PrCs is that as you narrow your focus you run the risk of becoming a one trick pony. If a GM throws something at you from left field, you are so screwed.
Now, in Pathfinder, I have not used any PrCs at all because I like the base classes so well I don't even want to multi-class. There is just so much fun stuff to play with in each base class I could be happy for years before ever planning on doing a PrC. Those capstone powers are just too much fun, I don't want to loose them.
That is exactly why they added the much needed bump in abilities to most base classes. Paizo saw the problem that prestige classes were causing and needed to give players a reason to stick with a class for balance sake. You also mentioned the problem of PrCs being a one trick pony which has always been my bugaboo about them. One player that I play with always makes these awesomely powered, prestige class dipping, characters that always have a very narrow skill set. It always is the characters undoing. I just wish we had a system that rewards creativity and variety without sacrificing balance.
Actually I like the approach Paizo is taking on PrC's. They are making them heavy on fluff and tied to world setting. Which to me makes sense. They have a few generic PrC's but the rest are all tied to the setting. Which is how I would rather see it. Now I wouldn't mind seeing some more PrC's in some of the campaign books though.
+1 I think that all prestige classes should be setting specific, TBH. General purpose prestige classes like Arcane Archer could be an archetype of the Magus. Assassin could be a Rogue archetype. Maybe then my players would use them. Archetypes are easier, and allow a niche role playing experience from level 1. A prestige class should be something that helps tie a PC to something *prestigious* in a campaign world.
Side note: For months I see posts on these forums praising the focus on core/base classes and the archetype system, but then a book comes out that lacks prestige classes and the complaints start popping up. I'm all for people having their opinions and wanting different things... I'm just making a note on the perceived shift in "vocalization."
That is exactly why they added the much needed bump in abilities to most base classes. Paizo saw the problem that prestige classes were causing and needed to give players a reason to stick with a class for balance sake. You also mentioned the problem of PrCs being a one trick pony which has always been my bugaboo about them. One player that I play with always makes these awesomely powered, prestige class dipping, characters that always have a very narrow skill set. It always is the characters undoing. I just wish we had a system that rewards creativity and variety without sacrificing balance.Well, I have played many characters in 3.x that I would retool in mid-game with PrCs. Sometimes by using several PrCs to get the feel I want.
Most PrCs do not really need to be aimed for from 1st level. Usually at most it would take me a level or two to focus in on a PrC and get it. Does the level or two ultimately hurt me? No, because it did focus my skills and abilities toward my ultimate goal anyway.
I often play games that run up to level 20 or higher. It is not unusual for me to get around level 7 and decide to refocus and take a PrC around level 10, then get a tighter focus and take another at level 15. None of the PrCs were even considered at creation. It's not a big deal at all.
The ONLY problem I have found with PrCs is that as you narrow your focus you run the risk of becoming a one trick pony. If a GM throws something at you from left field, you are so screwed.
Now, in Pathfinder, I have not used any PrCs at all because I like the base classes so well I don't even want to multi-class. There is just so much fun stuff to play with in each base class I could be happy for years before ever planning on doing a PrC. Those capstone powers are just too much fun, I don't want to loose them.
Eh, I don't mind the potentially narrow abilities of a prestige class. If there was a prestige class that made you amazing at certain combat maneuvers, that could be sweet. If you wanted to go into something particularly narrow and obscure, you could have a 5 level late entry spellcasting prestige class that specialized in demiplane creation. (Seems to be the hot topic of the day.) Even if its only ideal for NPC concepts or BBEG's, I love all that random fluff. :D
If Paizo went the way of 3.5 with PrCs, I'd flat out quit playing the game.
The mechanics of playing the game shouldn't require skill. I shouldn't have to know that, in order to get concept X to a mechanically comparable level to every body else's characters, that I need to combine PrC A, B, and C at levels 4, 7, and 5.
I cannot conceive how anybody who has an active social life would consider this kind of required expertise (and therefore, requirement to spend mastering the game mechanics) a virtue of the game - nor is it, in any way, an attraction for potential new players.
If you want to spend that kind of time mastering game mechanics, there are plenty of collectible card games you can dig into.
I admit that I love Magic the Gathering and this kind of mix and match to achieve power appeals to me. However, I don't desire a return to the min/max Prestige Class Olympics, either. That was 3.5, now we have Pathfinder. At the same time, I think Paizo can introduce more prestige classes without breaking the game. We'll see?
otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.Gadzooks!
+1
Oddly enough, when I read that I thought it sounded cool. Maybe I'll re-tinker the classes and try that out someday... xD
I hope my post wasn't read as criticizing the idea of treating game mechanics like optimization puzzles. Such a view just doesn't belong at my game table when I'm playing Pathfinder.I admit that I love Magic the Gathering and this kind of mix and match to achieve power appeals to me. However, I don't desire a return to the min/max Prestige Class Olympics, either. That was 3.5, now we have Pathfinder. At the same time, I think Paizo can introduce more prestige classes without breaking the game. We'll see?If Paizo went the way of 3.5 with PrCs, I'd flat out quit playing the game.
The mechanics of playing the game shouldn't require skill. I shouldn't have to know that, in order to get concept X to a mechanically comparable level to every body else's characters, that I need to combine PrC A, B, and C at levels 4, 7, and 5.
I cannot conceive how anybody who has an active social life would consider this kind of required expertise (and therefore, requirement to spend mastering the game mechanics) a virtue of the game - nor is it, in any way, an attraction for potential new players.
If you want to spend that kind of time mastering game mechanics, there are plenty of collectible card games you can dig into.
Indeed, each game table is different. My GM and I are shameless min/max-ers, while the other 4 players in my group couldn't be bothered with that.
I think it is important that even when a min/max-er is playing at your table, they aren't enabled to stack a bunch of crazy rules from different books to produce an effect that would otherwise be impossible or improbable. Understanding mechanics should give the gamer an edge, but not break the game. Pathfinder has done a superb job of this thus far, and I hope that continues.
|
otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.Gadzooks!+1
Oddly enough, when I read that I thought it sounded cool. Maybe I'll re-tinker the classes and try that out someday... xD
Oddly enough.. this is what 4th edition has done. Works well for 4th rdition.
|
|
MY idea of PrCs is radically different than what they were in 3.x
*First, all PrCs would fit into two categories- 10 level or 5 level classes.
*Second, all 10 level PrCs would have a minimum entry requirement of level 10, and all 5 level PrCs would have an entry level requirement of level 15.
The reason for this is creates a known power base to work with that keeps PrCs from becoming too powerful when stacked. Ideally a 10 level PrC has its abilities balanced to what a character would get in those appropriate levels as a base class. Dipping into other classes would offer up "lower" powered abilities in exchange for "high" level ones. It has a built in system of discouraging multiple dipping to build power. For example, a FIght 10/Knight of the Round Table 2 would have abilities equivalent to roughly a 12th level character. But a Fighter 10/Bard 2 potentially gives up some higher level abilities for some rather limited use abilities. Not a great trade off.
Another reason is to encourage high level play leading up and into Epic levels. And I LIKE Epic play :)
*Third, a PrC would not exactly require specific class abilities or skills to enter. Instead it would be a Concept or Theme that focuses any class towards its goals. For example, an Assassin does not need to ideally need be a Rogue, nor necessarily evil to enter the PrC. Instead we focus ALL classes toward specializing in specific types of killing for hire. Ideally this would be written using Divine, Arcane, Martial, Skill divisions to offer different abilities to focus any class towards the objective. In a way this could be seen as broad conceptual Archetypes being applied to higher levels.
Anyway, this is just a rough idea and not been tested or refined.
|
|
Oddly enough.. this is what 4th edition has done. Works well for 4th rdition.otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.Gadzooks!+1
Oddly enough, when I read that I thought it sounded cool. Maybe I'll re-tinker the classes and try that out someday... xD
Not everything in 4th Ed is bad. There are some really good ideas there.
And remember, back in the boxed sets, you progressed in stages as well. While you didn't really change your classes and mutli-class into PrCs, I think this idea applies a modern twist on the original idea of power level increases associated with level tiers.
MY idea of PrCs is radically different than what they were in 3.x
*First, all PrCs would fit into two categories- 10 level or 5 level classes.
*Second, all 10 level PrCs would have a minimum entry requirement of level 10, and all 5 level PrCs would have an entry level requirement of level 15.
The reason for this is creates a known power base to work with that keeps PrCs from becoming too powerful when stacked. Ideally a 10 level PrC has its abilities balanced to what a character would get in those appropriate levels as a base class. Dipping into other classes would offer up "lower" powered abilities in exchange for "high" level ones. It has a built in system of discouraging multiple dipping to build power. For example, a FIght 10/Knight of the Round Table 2 would have abilities equivalent to roughly a 12th level character. But a Fighter 10/Bard 2 potentially gives up some higher level abilities for some rather limited use abilities. Not a great trade off.
Another reason is to encourage high level play leading up and into Epic levels. And I LIKE Epic play :)
*Third, a PrC would not exactly require specific class abilities or skills to enter. Instead it would be a Concept or Theme that focuses any class towards its goals. For example, an Assassin does not need to ideally need be a Rogue, nor necessarily evil to enter the PrC. Instead we focus ALL classes toward specializing in specific types of killing for hire. Ideally this would be written using Divine, Arcane, Martial, Skill divisions to offer different abilities to focus any class towards the objective. In a way this could be seen as broad conceptual Archetypes being applied to higher levels.
Anyway, this is just a rough idea and not been tested or refined.
I kind of like this idea, but its not something I'd apply to all prestige classes, especially not for the multi-class prestige classes. Imagine having to wait until level 10 to take your first level of Mystic Theurge or Arcane Trickster. Painful enough as is.
A couple of cons of archetypes is:
...
2) It's an "all or nothing" mechanic, and would've been a lot better if they were alternate class features to cherry pick from, and not lock yourself out of a class feature you wanted to keep for your class just to grab a class feature from the archetype you wanted take; there's no customization!
This is the *strongest* feature of archetypes. Preventing (to quote you) "cherry picking" is exactly what makes archetypes a worthwhile thing. There are far too many problems with allowing the combinations of absolutely any sort of options, which can easily combine several slightly overpowered choices to end up with a crazy result.
I Like Prestige Classes. I *HATE* brokenly powerful Prestige Classes. Paizo has done exceptionally well with them, both providing flavorful interesting classes, and keeping them under control.
A couple of cons of archetypes is:
...
2) It's an "all or nothing" mechanic, and would've been a lot better if they were alternate class features to cherry pick from, and not lock yourself out of a class feature you wanted to keep for your class just to grab a class feature from the archetype you wanted take; there's no customization!This is the *strongest* feature of archetypes. Preventing (to quote you) "cherry picking" is exactly what makes archetypes a worthwhile thing. There are far too many problems with allowing the combinations of absolutely any sort of options, which can easily combine several slightly overpowered choices to end up with a crazy result.
I Like Prestige Classes. I *HATE* brokenly powerful Prestige Classes. Paizo has done exceptionally well with them, both providing flavorful interesting classes, and keeping them under control.
I'd have to agree with you there. Perhaps they could have done "cherry picking" instead of archetypes, but if they had, they would certainly have toned down a lot of the abilities and made them bland, weak, and unattractive. Choices = power, so they'd have to be extremely careful in what they gave players access to.
Take a look at the Quinggong Monk from UM; you can trade out Monk abilities for a list of Ki Abilities or other monk abilities. This is awesome especially if you really dislike Diamond Soul or whatever. On the other hand, none of the abilities are particularly amazing, they're just cool options. (Ki is pretty powerful as is, granting an extra attack each turn. Abilities that use up Ki can be cool, but that's less of those extra attacks you could have had)
...so taking the archetype package will generally be the better deal for the player. It's also the only way they can sneak in the fluff. :D
You could also look into the companion books for PrCs. I know quite a few of the books get a prestige class in them, from the evil ones in the Books of the Damned, to the setting specific ones, like the Living Monolith from OsirionAlso true. Classes like the harrower. low templar and red mantis assassin are flavorful setting-specific PrCs.
Off topic:
Where is the low templar? Color me intrigued.
|
|
Personally, I vastly prefer archetypes to Prestige Classes. The emphasis on Prestige Classes in 3.5, along with the multiclassing system in general, often made it impossible to play certain character concepts until very high levels.
Now, with the preponderance of ACFs in late 3.5 and the archetypes in Pathfinder, you can play a much wider variety of character types from 1st level and Prestige Classes exist mostly to patch up the holes in the multiclass rules.
Ditto. Also, it prevents those horrible "dipping" scenarios I've watched / forced to listen to as powergamers and rules lawyers give the finger to the campaign and escalate it into who can overcome the BB in one turn the fastest.
|
|
The folks at Paizo hate prestige classes. They also hate multiclassing. Neither option will get much support because they feel that sticking with one base class should be enough. I have mixed feelings on this.Not true.
I'm a folk at Paizo, and I quite like multiclassing AND prestige classes. I put four prestige classes into the Inner Sea World Guide, and we periodically do them in Pathfinder Adventure Path. I put a prestige class into the last book I wrote for Paizo ("Lords of Chaos"). There's two more coming in "Inner Sea Magic" due out at Gen Con. The PC I chose to put into the "NPC Guide" in the Paizo PCs chapter is multiclassed. Many of the bad guys in adventures I develop are multiclassed. The most important NPC in the upcoming Jade Regent AP is multiclassed.
The fact is, though, that there IS a relatively large outcry against more prestige classes, and that outcry is in fact coming from the customers. We listen to the folks who buy our games, and there's been a quite vocal opinion here and on other boards that, by the time 3.5 drew to a close, a lot of people were tired of prestige classes.
Now, if enough time has passed since then that the appetite for prestige classes is returning... cool! We'll react by putting more into print. Of course... the time lapse between us seeing a new demand for prestige classes and the point where they start appearing frequently in print again isn't insignificant...
...but I just wanted to point out that Paizo is not against multiclassing or prestige classes. One of the main design goals of Pathfinder was to make the base classes viable from 1st to 20th level, but that doesn't also mean we hate prestige classes. It just means we want the base classes to be worth it from start to end... otherwise we'd just do 10 level base classes and let folks multiclass or prestige class once they go beyond 10th level.
+1!
|
|
As much as I would love to work for Paizo, I'm not sure I'd like to be the one to bear the brunt of criticism for every design choice made. No matter what you do, someone is going to complain. ...and apparently I'm just another one of those complainers.
Yup. Unless a game designer thinks exactly like a specific customer on a particular day, there's never going to be perfect happiness (especially when said customer plays exactly by the book and continues to refuse to change their game to suit their own wants even when encouraged to do so.)
Good luck, James and the rest o' y'all. Just don't screw up. ;)
Boy, talk about a backhanded compliment.