|
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.
I remember reading that the archetypes "all or nothing" system was partially to alleviate the biggest complaint about 3.x and, increasingly, Pathfinder: balance issues between classes. If being allowed to cherry-pick whatever ability one wants, just ask your GM to allow you to do so (and if they do, please let me know: I have more than a few powergamers I'd love to send to their campaign ^_^)
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."
I compleatly disagree with the idea "General should be specific" Because that is what Archtypes do. They make something specific.
Making assassins a rogue type, means that assassins could never be rangers, bards, monks, fighters, wizards, sorcerers, gunslingers, inquisitors, anti-palidins, clerics, magus, ninjas, samurai, cavaliers, witches, summoners, and whatever other base classes there are.
Even though a ninja is an alternative version of a rogue, It wouldn't be able to take the assassin archtype. There would instead have to be two archtypes, and ultimately the assassin would be watered down to "I stab people"
A PrC is something that can encompass many classes or exists soully to improve multi-class combonations. It should exist to enhance a single specific class unless the idea is so fantastical that there is absolutely no way possible to create an archtype of it. The master Chymist I will forever hold as a terrible example of a PrC and one that should never be created again.
By making PrCs specific to certain settings where you start having "Prereq - Natasha Guildmore of the Blue Raven Adventuring guild needs to witness you fight a dragon with your bare hands, alone, with out the aid of magical means while wearing fullplate."
Cause now, Unless I'm using the setting where Natash Guildmore of the Blue Raven Adventuring guild is actual available to watch you to a feat of stupidity that 99% of the time will never happen unless you where specifically looking for it to in which case the chances of it happening increase to maaaybe 90%... this pre-req will never be fulfilled.
I don't see any proof of hate for multiclassing on Paizo's part, though since taking more than one class has meant gimped characters since the advent of 3.x, you could hardly blame them for trying to come up with better alternatives.
As to prestige classes, I remember feeling a bit of trepidation way back in 2000 or whenever, then a sense that maybe this might be a good idea, followed about two years later (and ever since) with the certainty that the ship was listing then sinking due to a class/prestige class glut of unimaginable proportions, the vast majority of which were darling builds only the self-indulgent designers at a certain formerly interesting game company could possibly love.
I happen to feel that prestige classes were one of the main inroads to the whole ridiculous build thing (along with the D&D minis game) that plagued all the splat books and the minis line for the last three or so years of 3.5. Page after page of useless crapolla. Rarely were any of the prestige classes designed to be in any way appealing or helpful, and they almost never followed a practical course, and rarely were clearly defined after a couple of levels.
Paizo has done the right thing limiting them, in my opinion. Even those they do have are only barely appealing to me.
I remember reading that the archetypes "all or nothing" system was partially to alleviate the biggest complaint about 3.x and, increasingly, Pathfinder: balance issues between classes. If being allowed to cherry-pick whatever ability one wants, just ask your GM to allow you to do so (and if they do, please let me know: I have more than a few powergamers I'd love to send to their campaign ^_^)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.
We will probably kill the powergamers. So far already racked up 3 of them.
The problem isn't so much that you cannot cherry pick, but the fact that every archtype pretty much mods one ability. For the bards, it tends to be bardic knowledge or inspire courage. For Rogues, your anti-trap skills or your evasion/uncanny dodge skills.
The large scale sweeping archetypes, especially ones that thematically would end up going together very well, create this problem.
The werewolf based druid would work very well with the packlord or the wolf shaman, but is banned because all three mod wildshape just a little bit.
I'll reiterate this. The problem lies in the fact that class archtypes almost always replace the same 1 or two abilities. Smaller more bite sized 'archtypes' would allow for a slighter greater amount of customization.
The second problem though comes from the fact that since these abilities are replace, you no longer qualify for the same feats anymore. If you took say, Synthesis, you no longer can take any summoner specific feat. Even though, logically, you should be able to, you just don't anymore.
I like archetypes better than prestige classes. Still requires you play a single class up to full, but at the same time gives you alternate abilities and options.
What I want is a book that creates archetypes for clerics of all the different gods like the Faiths & Avatars did for 2E. They made their clerics must like archetypes. The cleric is too mundane at the moment. It needs some flavoring up. Archetype clerics for each god would go a long way to make them more interesting.
Though it may be hard since clerics get so few abilities based on level. Not sure why they made clerics so dry, but I hope they do another Faiths & Avatars down the line for Golarion. I know it will be way down the line, but that was one of my favorite books ever. Made playing a cleric fun and gave such great descriptions of each religion for those of us that love the religious element in the Pathfinder.
And archetypes seem perfectly suited to creating specialty priests, better than creating Prcs for each priest. Main requirement need only be the worship of a certain god or goddess.
I'm not missing Prcs much at all. It always seemed strange to me that you worked your way up in a particular class only to suddenly change your focus into some alternate PRC. I like that you are encouraged to maintain your profession from 1st to 20th level. Makes more sense. I think archetypes provide a different path from 1st to 20th, which better fits into the trend.
While I actually like prestige classes I will say that thus far the way that the various archetypes are set up I am content if we don't see to many so long as the base classes remain interesting and functional.
I love messing with mechanics and in my view the prestige classes were meant to be a patch fix for a class that might be a bit weak or a way to introduce new concepts as well as making certain archetypes more achievable. The APG, between the alternate character options and interesting base classes managed to throw multiple different options for someone who just wants to explore mechanically as well as offering a few prestige classes for things that might not be perfectly explored and still provide a lot of fun and balanced stuff.
Edit: And good point AEvux, I can see the issue where a few different abilities might work well thematically from different archetypes and the ability to try to mod them a bit more can be problematic. I hate to put that one solely in the DMs area but trying to design a more modular archetype system where you can switch parts and make it a hard an fast part of the system would likely be a tad problematic.
I'm thinking that from now on, prestige classes will be on DM approval only in my games. Just so I don't have to deal with the headache of them if I don't want to.
You mean you do not already do that? Mind boggled
Remember, I'm running my Crazy Town Campaign, with a freakin' Eladrin.
Did not know that really. But I followed the advice about PRC's in the 3.0 DMG. Which has been pretty good advice. Of coarse I am also of the school of though PRC's should be tailored to the world.
|
Prestige Classes suck. I'm sick of them, I'm sick of 3,5 PrC bloat which added nothing to the game except for generating an occasional "oops" such as Abjurant Cheesecake or Planar Shepherd.
For several reasons, which I always post when Razz does his "More PrCs", yet he never answers those, so I'll post them again.
PrCs aren't that universal as you think.
Let's take a hypothetical Undead Hunter class. If it adds caster levels, it's useless for non-casters. If it doesn't, it's useless for casters. So, one bunch of classes goes right away.
In fact, PrCs are even more shoehorning than Archetypes, because they force you to build your characters according to specific feat/skill layout from level 1. Of course, you can try to build up the requisites later, but guess what? Most PrCs are built around an assumption that you enter them at level 6. The abilities you get from PrC are balanced against single-class abilities of level 6+. So if you enter a PrC later, you're behind.
Lastly, archetypes allow you to get something out of your choice right away, while PrCs require several months worth of weekly sessions to get that first level of the PrC, and several more to hit the end. Instant gratification beats prolonged wait.
PrCs are fine for representing organizations and specific multiclass combo, but I'm happy they didn't become bread and butter of Pathfinder.
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:
** spoiler omitted **
The low templar is a sort of war-weary veteran of the ongoing war at the Worldwound, a mix of jaded crusader and dirty fighter. It's in the ISWG, along with 3 other PrCs (Harrower, Hellknight, and RMA).
I agree, there does need to be more PrCs. This hatred is of them is un-needed and overly restricting.
|
I consider PrCs to be one of the bigger fails of 3.5...there were too many of them and some of them were useless, even flavor-wise. Paizo did the smart thing and reintroduced the more balanced ones, fixed them and thankfully, does not dish out as much of them as wotc used to do. I consider more than 4-5 prcs per rulebook to be too much. I'd rather have archetypes.
I agree, there does need to be more PrCs. This hatred is of them is un-needed and overly restricting.
It's about options. If a player wants a certain flavor, he should be able to make it, mechanically, without being too weak OR powerful. Like the archetypes, you give up something to get something else. Your straight-classed teammates shouldn't lose out because you went a different direction, nor should you.
I have 3 players right now who are all aiming for PrCs (Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, and Duelist). They all have, or will be, multiclassing to get more class skills in an urban-flavored campaign, where a little extra know-how is a useful thing. Oddly enough, they've developed some good synergy that way.
I wouldn't call these PrCs over- or underpowered. They just fit the players' concepts.
Prestige Classes suck. I'm sick of them, I'm sick of 3,5 PrC bloat which added nothing to the game except for generating an occasional "oops" such as Abjurant Cheesecake or Planar Shepherd.
For several reasons, which I always post when Razz does his "More PrCs", yet he never answers those, so I'll post them again.
PrCs aren't that universal as you think.
Let's take a hypothetical Undead Hunter class. If it adds caster levels, it's useless for non-casters. If it doesn't, it's useless for casters. So, one bunch of classes goes right away.
In fact, PrCs are even more shoehorning than Archetypes, because they force you to build your characters according to specific feat/skill layout from level 1. Of course, you can try to build up the requisites later, but guess what? Most PrCs are built around an assumption that you enter them at level 6. The abilities you get from PrC are balanced against single-class abilities of level 6+. So if you enter a PrC later, you're behind.
Lastly, archetypes allow you to get something out of your choice right away, while PrCs require several months worth of weekly sessions to get that first level of the PrC, and several more to hit the end. Instant gratification beats prolonged wait.
PrCs are fine for representing organizations and specific multiclass combo, but I'm happy they didn't become bread and butter of Pathfinder.
This. And for the "why rogues only should be assassins", let's put it in this way:
Why should only clerics (and oracles) cast miracle? Because is their thing. The same, stuff behind Assassin, Shadowdancer and Master Spy prestige classes (and the poison use option) should have been rogue class features and/or talents from day 1.
As for the assassin "concept", you don't need a class for that. I'm pretty sure a deadly stroke double crossbow fighter can accomplish pretty well the sniper assassin concept without ONE level of assassin.
I can see the OP concerns, and I think that the best thing are arhetypes that are able to swap class ability modularly. As an example, the Qinjong monk. PrC would bring to silluy prerequisites, unexpected combinations, and a lot of stuff already seen, with no need of seeing that again.
Cept we are now getting archtype bloat.
Yes, lets be geshia, spend 10 minutes for a tea ceremony only to gain the bonus for ten minutes afterwards.
The assassin prc concept.. goes far beyond "I kill someone".
And Clerics, Oracles and Some witches can cast miracle now. Its not "their thing" any more than killing people is "The rogues thing".
The double crossbow sniper fighter dude.. He attacks once.. is spotted. Game over. SNAKE SNAAAAKE SNAAAAAAAAKE!
Cept we are now getting archtype bloat.
Yes, lets be geshia, spend 10 minutes for a tea ceremony only to gain the bonus for ten minutes afterwards.
The assassin prc concept.. goes far beyond "I kill someone".
And Clerics, Oracles and Some witches can cast miracle now. Its not "their thing" any more than killing people is "The rogues thing".
The double crossbow sniper fighter dude.. He attacks once.. is spotted. Game over. SNAKE SNAAAAKE SNAAAAAAAAKE!
What I said does not imply that archetypes are necessarily perfect. But IMHO are a good way to go (my "perfect" version would be a division of features by kind - defense, utility, offense - and making them modular, but this means annother edition of the game :P).
I said is a rogue thing because I see it very fitting with a sneaky guy. So i don't see why a rogue should get PrCs to get them. If you want other people get them with a PrC, nothing wrong - but should be a secondary thing.
EDIT: assuming prereqs don't wreak your build from the first moment. And if spellcasting is involved, thigs get weird.
The crossbow fighter will deal quadruple damage (more if critical) and constitution bleed. Then initiative starts. And I didn't say "It's the BESTEST PC EVAARR" I said: can I use it as a sniper assassin? I guess so.
But you see, there is a huge difference between being just able to kill someone and the way the assassin PrC can kill someone. Personally, I feel the Ranger is far more assassin based than the rogue. Rangers after all train specifically to kill specific races.
But at the same time, Bards could really use the ability to kill someone with no one noticing, even during the middle of one of the bards performances.
Archetypes, while great, are incapable of handling things like thing easily. You would have to create a new archetype for ranger, rogue, ninja, bard, monk and whatever else there is that qualifies as a "sneaky guy"
Especially when you start adding in alternative classes, A ninja could never be a rake or trapmaster.
Having Base classes and their archetypes, along with alternatives (as their archtypes) plus modular archtypes like that of the quigon monk, and PrCs that aren't stupid, allow for a larger amount of character creation.
The problem is peoples adamant hate for PrCs is just because WotC was stupid with so many of them. Much stuff can be handled with archtypes sure, but as long as Paizo doesn't go around and keep making master chymist type PrCs or start recreating ones like Geomancer from 3.5.. Then PrCs aren't going to have stupid bloat. Well unless your a bloatmage.. but that is something else.
I like the way Paizo is handling PrC at this time. A good blend of archetypes and PrCs can go along way in a campaign. Also, rather then getting such...atrocities like the War Hulk from 3.5...we are getting ones that work well with the setting, and seem thought out.
Do I want more universal PrCs? Some yeah, I'd like a slight update on the Archmage from the WotC run, maybe a good Barbarian PrC.
Truth be told though I have no problem letting a person play a Red Mantis Assassin in my homebrew, all it requires is some reskinning on my part to make it a new organization or even just a different name.
As long as Paizo stays sharp and focuses on mechanically sound (read not broken) and flavorful options I'll be happy.
Edit: Besides it is much easier to qualify for a prestige class universally then it was during the WotC era with skill points working the way they do now.
But at the same time, Bards could really use the ability to kill someone with no one noticing, even during the middle of one of the bards performances.
IMHO, stuff like this should be handled through feats or, even better, improved use of skills.
Mind it, I see your point, and I totally see PrC use for give an help to multiclassing classes and synergies. But then, if you want to expand concepts, just give them to more than a class.
Like uncanny dodge. both barbarians and rogues have access to it.
I don't use 3.5 stuff in my Pathfinder, so I don't have access to a lot of prestige classes, however I'm very happy with that.
I prefer to have a seperate archetype for every class that would pick a prestige class, than have that prestige class.
That way I still get my capstone things, I can stay "true" to my class, and I don't get munchkin aberrations. (I had them back in 3.5 when I way a dirty dirty munchkin)
I dislike 3.5 PrC, because they tried to make other classes try to be effective. Only straight casters like wizards, druids, or clerics should be effective and if other classes try to be, then they should be beaten down. Just say no to PrCs, keep the low-brow classes in their place!
|
|
I dislike 3.5 PrC, because they tried to make other classes try to be effective. Only straight casters like wizards, druids, or clerics should be effective and if other classes try to be, then they should be beaten down. Just say no to PrCs, keep the low-brow classes in their place!
Yeah, Bloodhound, Dread Pirate and Kensai were great examples of how WotC fixed martial classes using PrCs. :)
Or any "7 levels, 3 of which advance your casting" PrC in case somebody God forbid wanted to spice up his caster
I dislike 3.5 PrC, because they tried to make other classes try to be effective. Only straight casters like wizards, druids, or clerics should be effective and if other classes try to be, then they should be beaten down. Just say no to PrCs, keep the low-brow classes in their place!Yeah, Bloodhound, Dread Pirate and Kensai were great examples of how WotC fixed martial classes using PrCs. :)
Just because WotC went herp-a-derp, doesn't mean that all PrCs will be herp. WotC herped many derps when making even just base classes. So far Paizo has avoided herping the derp that is too herpy. Cept for master chymist. That was a herp. But one PrC out of the several they released already.. I call that a win.
|
|
Just because WotC went herp-a-derp, doesn't mean that all PrCs will be herp. WotC herped many derps when making even just base classes. So far Paizo has avoided herping the derp that is too herpy. Cept for master chymist. That was a herp. But one PrC out of the several they released already.. I call that a win.I dislike 3.5 PrC, because they tried to make other classes try to be effective. Only straight casters like wizards, druids, or clerics should be effective and if other classes try to be, then they should be beaten down. Just say no to PrCs, keep the low-brow classes in their place!Yeah, Bloodhound, Dread Pirate and Kensai were great examples of how WotC fixed martial classes using PrCs. :)
Well if you think that Master Chymist is meh and Stalwart Defender is fine, I really don't know what to say :)
My point was - PrC inflation reached the point where it is 80% crap nobody cares about, 10% useful/no-brainer (Abjurant Cheesecake, Frenzied Berserker) and 10% zomfg what were they thinking (Planar Shepherd, Incantrix). As a result, I'm tired of the concept, because WotC obviously attempted to fix all their class problems with PrCs, usually failing badly.
PrCs DON'T work as class fixes. Mostly because it's no fix if you have to soldier on 5 levels in the "crap" base class before you even start to get something. Fix the base class and stop giving me half-hearted band-aids. Yes brass knuckles, I am looking at you.
PrCs DON'T work as an alt variant of the base class, for the same reason as above. If I want to be a Crossbow Specialist I want to be it from level one, not after half a year of gaming.
PrCs DO work as multiclass synergy, if they're well designed, in some cases. Example - WotC did a zillion of "fighter/mage" PrCs (EK, Spellsword, etc.) before they realized that it won't work as a mashup and printed the Duskblade, who arguably does work as intended.
PrCs DO work as representation of some organization that grants special/unique skills, because that's what they were supposed to be in the first place.
A build should be viewed only as a way to achieve the character concept and have it mechanically viable/fun to play. Unfortunately there's a lot of insistence that you must follow the printed fluff of a given class to the letter, which leads to thinking heavily multi-classed builds are stupid. Replace or discard the fluff that doesn't work for you, but keep the mechanics that you'd like your character to have.
Gorbacz: Pathfinder isn't a ton better about achieving a character concept at level 1. When you get down to it it's just an unavoidable issue in a level based system.
|
|
No! You can't be a samurai, unless you have at least a level in a class called samurai, an archtype of samurai, or a PrC of samurai. At least that's what I heard.A build should be viewed only as a way to achieve the character concept and have it mechanically viable/fun to play. Unfortunately there's a lot of insistence that you must follow the printed fluff of a given class to the letter, which leads to thinking heavily multi-classed builds are stupid. Replace or discard the fluff that doesn't work for you, but keep the mechanics that you'd like your character to have.
Gorbacz: Pathfinder isn't a ton better about achieving a character concept at level 1. When you get down to it it's just an unavoidable issue in a level based system.
I'm sure there is some 3.5 splatbook where samurai are a player race.
I'm sure there is some 3.5 splatbook where samurai are a player race.No! You can't be a samurai, unless you have at least a level in a class called samurai, an archtype of samurai, or a PrC of samurai. At least that's what I heard.A build should be viewed only as a way to achieve the character concept and have it mechanically viable/fun to play. Unfortunately there's a lot of insistence that you must follow the printed fluff of a given class to the letter, which leads to thinking heavily multi-classed builds are stupid. Replace or discard the fluff that doesn't work for you, but keep the mechanics that you'd like your character to have.
Gorbacz: Pathfinder isn't a ton better about achieving a character concept at level 1. When you get down to it it's just an unavoidable issue in a level based system.
3 in fact. Both Oriental Adventures/Rokugan books (Fighter with specific bonus feats due to clan) and Complete Warrior (Which sucked as a base class)
Character concept in game is easily met through the use of archetypes and prcs. The problem is PCs rarely start their concept as level 1 out the gate newbies. Most tend to first invision their version of Conan, Raistlin, Drizzt, Kahmal, (end point character) and try to fit that in as early as lvl 1 instead of just starting as the fresh fighter eager for adventure and glory.
|
|
I'm sure there is some 3.5 splatbook where samurai are a player race.No! You can't be a samurai, unless you have at least a level in a class called samurai, an archtype of samurai, or a PrC of samurai. At least that's what I heard.A build should be viewed only as a way to achieve the character concept and have it mechanically viable/fun to play. Unfortunately there's a lot of insistence that you must follow the printed fluff of a given class to the letter, which leads to thinking heavily multi-classed builds are stupid. Replace or discard the fluff that doesn't work for you, but keep the mechanics that you'd like your character to have.
Gorbacz: Pathfinder isn't a ton better about achieving a character concept at level 1. When you get down to it it's just an unavoidable issue in a level based system.
3 in fact. Both Oriental Adventures/Rokugan books (Fighter with specific bonus feats due to clan) and Complete Warrior (Which sucked as a base class)
Character concept in game is easily met through the use of archetypes and prcs. The problem is PCs rarely start their concept as level 1 out the gate newbies. Most tend to first invision their version of Conan, Raistlin, Drizzt, Kahmal, (end point character) and try to fit that in as early as lvl 1 instead of just starting as the fresh fighter eager for adventure and glory.
I know that there are Samurai CLASSES. I was, half-jokingly, wondering if there is a Samurai RACE, which would solve all the OOTS problems ;)
@ Gorbacz
Fair enough, text without context and all. Though there are folks that haven't dealt with WotC Class/PrC bloat, thought you were one of them. :)
What sucks is that during the WotC run, I had a hard time making character concepts work, just because it was such a pain in the ass to find the right starting class then link it to the right prc. I found it more annoying that I had to look towards Mongoose Publishing to provide PrCs and alternate abilities that actually met with my concept.
So again I say that Paizo is doing a great job juggling PrC's and archetypes. Still want an updated Archmage if some awesome designer is reading this thread ;).
|
|
What sucks is that during the WotC run, I had a hard time making character concepts work, just because it was such a pain in the ass to find the right starting class then link it to the right prc. I found it more annoying that I had to look towards Mongoose Publishing to provide PrCs and alternate abilities that actually met with my concept.
So again I say that Paizo is doing a great job juggling PrC's and archetypes. Still want an updated Archmage if some awesome designer is reading this thread ;).
The Archmage abilities have been broken down into several feats in APG, for what it's worth.
|
Just my opinion, but I really don't like the way that Paizo has handled Prestige Classes or Archtypes a lot of the time. Less so with the Archtypes, both because they are so new and because it is much more of a 50/50 split as to likes and hates.
I really do want more Prestige Classes over all, but especially ones for spellcasters. Archtypes as well. Particularly ones that focus either on deviating from the base classes assumed role, a little more or branch out. Secondly, I would like some more Prestige Classes for things like the Eagle Knight, HellKnight, Pathfinder, or other oganizations that are usable for more than a few (or one) base class.
It ma just be me, but the majority of the organizational-based PC really seemed designed for the classes that really don't need them to begin with. Some deity/religion based Prestige Classes for Cleric, Paladin, Druid, and Oracle would be really cool, as would some for Sorcerer Bloodlines. I really don't want to see any more for Fighter, Ranger, Bard (maybe), or Rogue, because in my opinion, they all have built in customization that other classes really need from PC's more.
All in all, I prefer Pestige Classes to Archtypes, because with Prestige Classes, it is both something you need to work towards and is more rewarding both in and out of character. Archtypes can be nice, (especially if they become more evenly distributed across all classes), but thy really just don't do the job that Prestige Classes does.
As far as people saying they don't want Prestige Classes like in 3.5, I am not sure those people are all that many as much as they are some of the more vocal. Besides, I have never understood that reasoning. They tend to be the people that say things like "if you don't like it don't use it", but when that comes back their way, more often tend to cry and whine, and start name-calling that everyone else is just a RPer that doesn't understand their sense of rules balance (IE the Tier system) or total min/maxers with no sense of fluff, as it suites their purpose at the moment. IE, the blue falcon/sqweeky can that screws everyone else over for so, as long as they are ok.
@ Beckett
I partially fall into your example of folks that don't want as many PrC's but will tell people if you don't like don't use it. I try my best to follow my own advice on the matter, though sometimes I slip.
My biggest reason for not wanting the large amount of PrCs from 3.X is that after a point you either get the same PrC from another book, only the new one one minor change to it and a new name. Also, I had a group that used some of the most broken PrC's for their builds (War Hulk is my biggest hatred). The other side is that it feels that for any PrC that I enjoyed there were at least 3 that were broken and 3 that made no sense (The original Dragon Disciple comes to mind).
Still though tastes are very differnt, and I still am in the camp of wanting options for those that want them regardless of if I want them. I do hope though that Paizo doesn't do what WotC did and just crank out book after book and sticks to just making one well done options book every so often.
There's a difference between not wanting as many Prestige Classes as 3.5 and wanting everyone else to think and play your way. Sorry, I wasn't trying to come of as arrogant as that might have or point fingers at you.
I didn't read any arrogance in your post, I felt you made a good point though. Granted I'm sure there will be someone that feels you are calling them out personally ;)
|
|
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.
Not to mention that there seemed to be no rhyme nor reason to PrC design back then; some were "broken", some were weak, some suffered from "feat tax" (e.g. the original Archmage in FRCS), and some were just plain weird (Master of the Unseen Hand? In Complete Warrior? C'mon, you must be kidding me!). And there were so many of them that nobody could keep track of all the possible combos...
I like that PF has de-emphasized prestige classes and multiclassing, and I love archetypes. I still hope that Paizo will publish more prestige classes in the future, perhaps even a whole book reserved for them, hmmm?
Just because WotC went herp-a-derp, doesn't mean that all PrCs will be herp. WotC herped many derps when making even just base classes. So far Paizo has avoided herping the derp that is too herpy. Cept for master chymist. That was a herp. But one PrC out of the several they released already.. I call that a win.I dislike 3.5 PrC, because they tried to make other classes try to be effective. Only straight casters like wizards, druids, or clerics should be effective and if other classes try to be, then they should be beaten down. Just say no to PrCs, keep the low-brow classes in their place!Yeah, Bloodhound, Dread Pirate and Kensai were great examples of how WotC fixed martial classes using PrCs. :)Well if you think that Master Chymist is meh and Stalwart Defender is fine, I really don't know what to say :)
You apparently have no idea who I am..
Master chymist is on my personal hate list. Stalwart defender, I haven't paid attention to. The Chymist is the worst of the PrCs that I know of, At least the Stalwart defender no long requires dwarf anymore, haven't bother building a tank so I don't know anything else beyond that of why you dislike it..
The Chymist is the kind of PrC that could have been an archtype. It calls out a specific class at a high level. (have to be a level 7 alchemist, no other classes..)
Just because you change the name or even some of the mechanics, doesn't change the fact there will be bloat. The more is released the more bloat there is.
For Archtypes, take the three reptile shamans for druid, the geshia for bard etc. There are more out there. This is pretty much the start of bloat.
PrC's almost always apply to only one class, or at the least they are only effective for use with one class or one multi-class combination. The concepts behind most archetypes can be used with classes that they are not specifically tied to. I was surprised by the lack of prcs in UM but it was a pleasant surprise as most PrCs released for 3.5 were total garbage imo, and if the base classes are solidly built there is little to no need for PrCs