|
Geshia - lets have a 10 minute teaparty before we open that next door.. or go on an adventure.. 10 minutes later lets to it again!
Not everyone in Golarion (or any other sane campaign setting) is an adventurer. As such, perhaps some archetypes are *gasp* aimed at NPCs. I know it hurts some of you to imagine any character, PC or NPC, as not being a twinked out min/maxed optimizer's wet dream, but not everyone will be one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps some archtypes should.. *Gasp* be only shown in the gamemastery book as NPC only archtypes.
I mean, after all, gasp, I can create a geshia by simply making oh I dunno.. Specialist NPC and put points into preform and tea making.. Poof, I've got an NPC geshia.
Instead we take an adventuring class (gasp i know) and turn it into bleh.
Its not a matter of twinking out or anything like that, that you people constantly try to use a fall back on when things just suck.
If they made an archtype that anytime you rolled a 1 on a d20 your character exploded and died with no ability to resurrect your character, you would still end up falling back on "Lol, just because it isn't a min/maxed Trolololo" when any sane person would be like "what is the bloody point of it?"
Its the difference between being able to actually flavor your character to have flaming red hair(gasp i know) and taking 10 feats, a special archtype, race and 5 magic items just so your character can have flaming red hair.
If you are going to make something mechanical, it should have some advantage mechanically. Otherwise it should default to just flavor.
IF I wanted to make a geshia, I would ignore the archtype, because (Shockingly enough) the mechanics of it are meh at best. Instead, I would take something like a rogue, ninja or monk, and yes maybe even bard, give it the appropriate skills and roleplay as a geshia. Heck I might even make it a gnome geshia so I can access to geshia chainsaw.
I know it hurts some of you to imagine that I don't need rules to roleplay characters and that not everyone who goes "This sucks" is a powergamer, and that not all powergamers sit around in their parents basements crunching numbers to figure out how to gain an extra .1 ADRP.
Some people, Like me, would actually love to have mechanics to just simple do cool crap. Whether it is with my character or my NPCs. And frankly a 10 minute tea party with a short 10 minute bonus immediately after (when 99/100 times the bonus will never be used) isn't really cool.
As a GM I never needed the archtype there in the first place to create a set up where my players are in a tea house or other establishment and they happen to get a buff just before the place is ambushed and attacked. You know why? Cause I'm the freeking GM. Rule 0, I can pretty much do whatever I want when I want, so long as my players don't get fed up and leave my game as a result.
If I say my players Have a bonus, they have a bonus. If I say the NPC is a geshia, it is a geshia.
This is what is so frustrating. On one hand certian people are quick to jump on rule 0 if something is broken (Which doesn't always mean overpowered) or can otherwise be houseruled but those same people will completely ignore rule 0 and say a number of things exist just simply so the GM has tools to work with.
If there is suppose to be tools specifically for GMs, possibly for things they might not have thought of, there is a book specifically for gms. Called the Gamemastery Book.
Prestige classes were originally designed to work like we do archtypes now.
That is to say- You take all of it. They were balanced for All of it- under the theory that no sane DM would let a PC cherry pick the best couple of abilities (that came at lower levels of the PrC due to having to blow so much away on the preqs, most of which were terrible).
Unfortunately, that just proved that there are alot of weak willed DM's out there who refuse to tell their PC's "No, you can't cherry pick PrC'!".
This continues even today- with folks trying to figure out how much EK to take compared to this class or that other PrC over there and such.
Is it bad? Not necessarily- it just makes it extraordinarily difficult to write a good PrC. Too much front loading and it becomes a 1-3 level dip- too much back loading and it becomes a waste of space. This unfortunately also means they can't put in a really good ability anywhere because to balance it they have to have other "meh" abilities. Folks will stay in it for the one thing and then ditch it.
This has created the Archtype. The Archtype is really just the idea of a prestige class that you can't opt out of. You can't say "Well I got X ability so now I'm gone". You can't just take the 6th level ability and opt into the rest.
This is *awesome*. It wasn't done to limit creativity it was done to limit POWER. It allows them to trade off something you don't need for something that is fairly powerful and to keep it balanced by the rest of the abilities being more base line. Its a work in progress though- because they *still* have to keep them from being a 1-4 level "dip" in an archtype then off to multiclass in to something else entirely.. but its really why they had to invent this new thing in the first place.
I liked the idea of prestige classes, but due to how they were abused I completely agree with how they've done the archtypes as well. For that reason, I'm glad they are moving away from them.. and hope they either stay away from them or start putting into the requirements that /all levels must be taken/.
-S
In exchange for not having PrCs you had archtypes.
scrollmaster, geshia... and a few others I can't remember right now as archtypes.
Scrollmaster - Can hit up to nine times before his sword is broken. And that is only if he is using a 9th level scroll, which gives him only a +4 enhancement bonus that he can lower for special abilities on the sword. That is over Three thousand gold pieces for the scroll master practically per fight.
Mind you, this is still a wizard doing this. So you have crappy stats for fighting in melee. (Low Bab, low HP)
Geshia - lets have a 10 minute teaparty before we open that next door.. or go on an adventure.. 10 minutes later lets to it again!
Oh I forgot the New reptile druids.. We now have basically three reptile shamans. At least the dinosaur and the serpent shamans pretty must say what they are while the dragon shaman? Not so much.
your examples are correct IMO - expecially the "dragon" shaman druid.
Nevertheless, I don't see how PrCs could be a fix for this. The only thing they can fix IME are multiclass, with diverse results.
Is true that the archetypes you cited are lazy, dull and uninspiring. Expecially the Geisha. Is relly "cheap".
I thought the point of the scrollmaster wasn't to run around stabbing people with really expensive expendable weapons, but when you have a scroll in hand and suddenly an enemy runs up to you, you can get some AC using it as a shield, or help your buddy flank by using it as a sword. Or both, if you have two.
And then at level 10 your normal usages of scrolls improves, meaning you're more likely to be having a scroll in hand to begin with.
Prestige classes are great. Archetypes are great. They all just have to be balanced and interesting. I understand people not wanting things to go the way they went in 3.5, but I have enough faith in the designers here to believe they could design a handful of good Prestige Classes every now and then, and they have done just that so far.
Allowing multiclassing and multiple prestige classes doesn't defeat any flavor. Classes are a meta-concept already to a large degree, it doesn't defeat any flavor to have a character who dips all over the place if that is who the character actually is and the end result is a coherent and well-thought our character.
Are there going to be optimal ways to design characters? Yeah. There already is though, so that's not a real argument in itself. If we get 3-5 PrCs per new book, and they are well designed and balanced, it's not going to be a big issue for years and years. Feats are already the way power-creep and optimal choices are really finding their way into PF, anyway. By all the arguments against PrCs I've seen...I would think people would also be arguing against any new feats being printed!
your examples are correct IMO - expecially the "dragon" shaman druid.
Nevertheless, I don't see how PrCs could be a fix for this. The only thing they can fix IME are multiclass, with diverse results.
Is true that the archetypes you cited are lazy, dull and uninspiring. Expecially the Geisha. Is relly "cheap".
Well I was simply highlighting the fact that poorly made archtypes are still the same sort of bloat we had with poorly made PrCs.
I also typed a bunch more stuff on this, that basically locking players into classes is very WoW like. Allowing an adventurer and his player the capability of making his own "class" via a multitude of tools (Archetypes, Prcs, Feats, etc) allows us to have things like "The Dark King" instead of "the calvilier.." or "Mein Doctor" instead of "Alchemist with chirgun and vivisectionist archetypes"
And well, don't get me wrong. There is lots of 3.5 PrCs that I found stupid as all could be.
The sacred matyr for example from BoED was a terrible PrC. Would have been okay if the only requirement was you had to die in a selfless manner, giving you some more time to play with a character before he finally is pulled away.
The worst offender for me was the Geomancer in the realm of stupid. It was almost like WotC had the scraps left over for a few other PrCs and tried to sew them together for this one.
I'm also heavily against the Master Chymist being a PrC. Simply because it runs far too heavily on the exact same mechanics as a normal alchemist. Perhaps if, like the assassin, it was capable of being taken by classes other than alchemist or it had a large number of various abilities that could have been mostly flavor with some mechanical works.. Then this would have been a good PrC. But it just didn't live up to that.
I don't get what's wrong with the Vivisectionist. Is not at le vevel of Geisha. And you can take two archeypes, few feats and call you PC the way you want.
Huh?
Problem is that many archtypes tend to replace or mod the same class feature. So Viv mods bombs, Reanimator mods bombs, clone master mods bombs.. These three do not stack as a result.
Fortantly the alchemist is one of the most opened classes. It actually has discoveries to mimic or totally gain, parts of other archtypes. For example the mind chemist, you lose the mutate ability for the mind based mutagen. But you could at level 2 take the mutate ability again and still have practically the full alchemist. (even though you still lose poison use)
You could even take the mind mutation as your discovery, or alchemical zombie to mimic the reanimator, or similacrums to mimic the clone master, or ooze vial to mimic the persivationalist..
I've found it much easier to break "You're a rogue, do Rogue things" when you can MC and yes, even PrC into things, than it is if you go 20 levels of rogue and take a handful of feats or archtypes.
I think I already said that in this thread or in another - myself, I would rebuild the classes with a certain modularity, dividing the powers in defense, offense and utility, and then assigning them a choice from a list of each, every X level dependding on the power and the class.
No archetypes, no PrC, Nuthin'. 18 Classes, fullstop.
As now, I find Archetypes, if well done, the best compromise.
As for me, If i had my way, I'd go more into gurps or animea style character creation where the class doesn't really mean what you can and cannot do, but just how easy it is to do the things you do.
|
I was reading though Ultimate Magic and was glad to see exactly zero prestige classes being forced down my unwilling throat.
While I was initially enamored of the concept when 3.0 premiered by the time 3.5 was mature I was so sick of the 6 class dip builds that so many were fond of.
Thanks to Paizo the core classes are interesting and the archetypes provide more flexibility for a huge number of character concepts.
I couldn't be happier.
-1,000.000. As long as they are designed properly I do not mind PRCs.
I'll go one further. Any group of assassins that wants to be successful will likely have members of most (if not all) of the classes. The same is true for most organizations that have their own prestige classes, to some degree.Offcourse you can try to fluff any class to an assassin concept.
My point was not fluff related.
Weak. A ranger can be an assassin just as easily as a rogue. So can a monk or fighter. Nothing stops a fighter from taking money for killing people. He doesn't need a special class to kill, and he doesn't need one to get money for it.
|
|
Horray!!!!! THANK you paizo for not giving us options that some people don't want to use... Granted some people prefer options... but Since I don't want them... I'm glad they don't exist....
/sigh...
Sorry if that is overly snarky... probably shouldn't post at 3am... with such little sleep today. Comments like this just... bug me a bit.
Personally I love the IDEA of Prestige Classes. Not overly fond of the ones they have so far... but i have a lot of hope that we'll find something truly awesome around the corner.
Its amazing how many threads we have about people hating the stuff that IS included... when it's so easy to just IGNORE it. If you don't like the new bloodlines... or prestige classes... or spells... don't use them!
But for all the people who DO want options and as many options as is humanly possible... I'm glad they have them!! And I encourage as MANY options as the Paizo people can come up with!
Agreed and seconded. I rather have more options. I can as a DM either ignore or disallow anything I do not want to include in my games.
That said, I wouldn't mind prestige classes if they are well designed and prestigious.
But please no more generic prestige classes. In fact no more classes that shouldn't be classes at all. Barbarian comes to my mind. :)
Ehhh... I'm of the exact opposite mindset.The 'generic' PrCs are the ones I like the best. Shadowdancers, Arcane tricksters, arcane archers, Eldrich knights... etc. They are a goal for any character that they can achieve in any campaign.
Unlike for example, Red mantis Assassin, Shackles Pirate, or Hellknight... that pretty much REQUIRES you to be playing in a certain game... in a certain AP, in a particualar city with JUST the right NPCs...
Ugggg...
THAT's the kind of PrC that takes up space and will 90% of the time NEVER get used... PROBABLY never even LOOKED at.
If they put them in the APs or something as story hooks... that'd be cool... but when you take up space in a general 'players' book for NPC kits... that's frustrating.
I want Options, The more the merrier... but I also want options I can USE.
Shackles Pirate?
The reason I have always liked prestige classes is they allow you to really develop and flesh a character out in a way you can't with archetypes. With archetypes it's either expert or nothing. With Prestige classes I can take 3 levels of 5 available or 1 level of a 10 level class. I don't have to get in at level 6 but I can wait until 8 after I picked up a few more perks from the base class. I can take more than one of them and in what order I want to. I can use multiclassing in a way to truly develop my character as I play through 15 to 17 levels of a character over the course of 3 or 4 years.
Paizo seems to really want to discourage multiclassing, I just don't see why. It is almost like they go out of their way to make cool-ish combos so incredibly gimped that no one would ever take it. (ex. Natural Attack focused Ranger and Serpentine bloodline sorcerer should be a cool as hell awesome build but even in the few rounds a day that you could pull off you "trick" it would still be incredibly lack-luster) I understand wanting people to play through 20 levels of a class, but man that is boring to do for people who have long established groups and actually play from 1 to 17 over the course of several years. (aka, target demographic) Give me something fresh to look forward to. Or better yet, just let me decide.
Archetypes don't give me choices, they give me shackles. It is still playing the same 20 level class, with no options past character creation. I like the idea of variant base classes but along with a healthy system for multiclassing and allowing the character to develop as a result of the world around them instead of as a pre-engineered archetype that was chosen while he was still an apprentice somewhere.
Additionally, who is to say that options presented in archetypes should only be obtainable from that base class? Why do you have to be an inquisitor inorder to be an exorcist? Really? You don't know ANY Paladins or Clerics who might want to take a look at those options? Who is to say that how I got...
I feel like this is by far the best post on this thread.
No they arn't. Its even more highly unlikely that the developers will not only create the feats you want, but have the exact pre-reqs needed to allow a player to jam together a maximum of 10-11 feats in any way that is wholey meaningful enough that said feats could exist to truely give the character character.
Most of them are "You gain a +x to this"
Now the assassin with a capstone ability.. He freeking turns people into dust when he kills them. Dust. Its an ability that has a low chance of actually being useful.. but it still is turning people into dust.
Try to put together a way to create a feat or even a feat chain that allows a player to turn someone to dust when he kills them. Chances are that whatever you end up creating will have much less meaning than the assassin PrC's ability to turn his kills into Dust.
|
Every time somebody posts a build that starts like this:
Paladin 1/Ranger 2/Sorcerer (shmooze bloodline) 5/Shark Lord of Shokorstro 4/Doomsworn Obliterator 4/Commoner 1
a part of me dies inside, and I really hope none of my players see it. Half of them would try to sell such build to me (fat chance), the other half would cringe "oh, that's where the absurdity of D&D is".
First off, its a build on the internet. Chances are high that it is a mechanical dung storm of mechanics.
But lets just say on the off chance it isn't a build like that. (Which mind you, even in 4e where MC practically doesn't exist since its broken into feats now, you still have builds like that which are one solid class even)
It is very well possible that the build actually creates a new class all together. The problem is too many people view classes like very specific things. Like a rogue is a rogue and always a rogue. Taking a level in fighter, is still just a rogue/fighter. This goes along with what I was saying earlier about my Dark King who is Calv5, Bard1, Low Templar2, battle herald10.
I personally don't view taking a level of bard as my character suddenly going out and joining hollywood. No, I view it more of he now starts gaining a greater ability in leadership as now he can start inspiring courage with Oratory.
Same with the Low Templar, he isn't doing any of the normal fluff of the low templar, He is an awe and inspiring commander and soon to be king who now doesn't suffer from most of the negitive parts of leadership, possibly through his own "govermental" control over his followers.
And battleherald is the final steps into his kinghood as it increases his leadership score every couple of levels.
The end result is a character who is quite a capable King, but has a bit of a dark side that most people tend to ignore or not even really acknowlege.
But unfortantly some people have a problem seeing the overall class and can only see the its parts.
First off, its a build on the internet. Chances are high that it is a mechanical dung storm of mechanics.
But lets just say on the off chance it isn't a build like that. (Which mind you, even in 4e where MC practically doesn't exist since its broken into feats now, you still have builds like that which are one solid class even)
It is very well possible that the build actually creates a new class all together. The problem is too many people view classes like very specific things. Like a rogue is a rogue and always a rogue. Taking a level in fighter, is still just a rogue/fighter. This goes along with what I was saying earlier about my Dark King who is Calv5, Bard1, Low Templar2, battle herald10.
I personally don't view taking a level of bard as my character suddenly going out and joining hollywood. No, I view it more of he now starts gaining a greater ability in leadership as now he can start inspiring courage with Oratory.
Same with the Low Templar, he isn't doing any of the normal fluff of the low templar, He is an awe and inspiring commander and soon to be king who now doesn't suffer from most of the negitive parts of leadership, possibly through his own "govermental" control over his followers.
And battleherald is the final steps into his kinghood as it increases his leadership score every couple of levels.
The end result is a character who is quite a capable King, but has a bit of a dark side that most people tend to ignore or not even really acknowlege.
But unfortantly some people have a problem seeing the overall class and can only see the its parts.
I completely agree. I look at multi-classing and prestige classing less as combining unrelated ideas and more as a way to create the character you want. My Rogue 11/Fighter 2 isn't any less of a "backstabbin' pickpocket" for his levels in fighter, he's just better slightly better in a straight up fight than most of his fellow skulkers. The levels in fighter, or even the levels in rogue, don't change the character...they're just an attempt to make the mechanical skeleton match up with the idea in my head. The character himself would tell you that he is certainly a fighter...but if you called him a rogue he would probably try and hit ya : )
My problem with it is that people don't say "he's more fighter than rogue so I'll go 12/8" or "he's more rogue than fighter so he'll be 12/8".
They say
"well, I want x ability before I swap out and I have to make sure I have all 4 attacks at level 20, so i have to make sure I get at least Y levels of fighter, oh and I'll take Z PRC for 2 levels to get this ability but the rest of that PrC is trash so I'll ditch that, too".
For alot of folks, especially builds you see online, it isn't about flavor and building a character around a theme.
It is about creating a set of numbers with the absolute maximum amount of power that is spray painted with "flavor" to make it not look like it was dreamed up by a roll-player.
It was a major, major problem with 3.0/5 PrC's and I'm glad they are limiting it.
-S
The reason I have always liked prestige classes is they allow you to really develop and flesh a character out in a way you can't with archetypes. With archetypes it's either expert or nothing. With Prestige classes I can take 3 levels of 5 available or 1 level of a 10 level class. I don't have to get in at level 6 but I can wait until 8 after I picked up a few more perks from the base class. I can take more than one of them and in what order I want to. I can use multiclassing in a way to truly develop my character as I play through 15 to 17 levels of a character over the course of 3 or 4 years.
Paizo seems to really want to discourage multiclassing, I just don't see why. It is almost like they go out of their way to make cool-ish combos so incredibly gimped that no one would ever take it. (ex. Natural Attack focused Ranger and Serpentine bloodline sorcerer should be a cool as hell awesome build but even in the few rounds a day that you could pull off you "trick" it would still be incredibly lack-luster) I understand wanting people to play through 20 levels of a class, but man that is boring to do for people who have long established groups and actually play from 1 to 17 over the course of several years. (aka, target demographic) Give me something fresh to look forward to. Or better yet, just let me decide.
Archetypes don't give me choices, they give me shackles. It is still playing the same 20 level class, with no options past character creation. I like the idea of variant base classes but along with a healthy system for multiclassing and allowing the character to develop as a result of the world around them instead of as a pre-engineered archetype that was chosen while he was still an apprentice somewhere.
Additionally, who is to say that options presented in archetypes should only be obtainable from that base class? Why do you have to be an inquisitor inorder to be an exorcist? Really? You don't know ANY Paladins or Clerics who might want to take a look at those options? Who is to say that how I got...
+ 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
About the Assasin PrC: Sure you can fluff any fighter or ranfer as an assassin that takes money for killing targets, but the guys with the PrC are the great assassins, the real deal, the ones hired by nobles and famous on the underground, because a)they have a special ability that stops people from being ressurrected, and if you send someone to kill a king that can pay for ressurrection you wiil want that, and b) these guys are strong, mechanically they have to be at least 6th level, in the game world that means that they are really strong people. Remember that people with any levels in an adventurer class are supposed to be rare, and anyone with more than 5 levels is supposed to be an elite.
And why is it better to have an Assassin PrC than it would be to have an Assassin archetype, you ask. Because with a PrC anyone that is evil enough to make a career out of killing other people of his species, has some basic training in the right skills and is badass enough to be chosen by another Assassin can become an Assassin. With an archetype only rogues can become assassins. And with a rogue assassin archetype, every time you make a fighter that takes money for killing people, you will know he's not a real asassin and the only way that he could be is if he takes a couple levels of assassin rogue.
@AEvux: Maybe the master chymist could be done as an archetype, losing bombs or extracts in exchange of a more powerfull, different style mutagen? If you dislike it so much, try your hand at the homebrew forum, maybe you can create a solution to your tastes.
My problem with it is that people don't say "he's more fighter than rogue so I'll go 12/8" or "he's more rogue than fighter so he'll be 12/8".
They say
"well, I want x ability before I swap out and I have to make sure I have all 4 attacks at level 20, so i have to make sure I get at least Y levels of fighter, oh and I'll take Z PRC for 2 levels to get this ability but the rest of that PrC is trash so I'll ditch that, too".
For alot of folks, especially builds you see online, it isn't about flavor and building a character around a theme.
It is about creating a set of numbers with the absolute maximum amount of power that is spray painted with "flavor" to make it not look like it was dreamed up by a roll-player.It was a major, major problem with 3.0/5 PrC's and I'm glad they are limiting it.
-S
To be honest, I don't even see a problem with that. People do that with feats, they do it with multiclassing, they do it with prestige classes, and they pick archetypes based on the same principles.
For some people, part of the fun of the game is the mechanical construction of characters. For anyone to sit around and claim "that is the wrong way to play" is pretty arrogant. The reason you see overly mechanical builds online is that it's really all there is to talk about. People come here looking for advice on making "effective" characters (and let's not forget that a big part of this game is actually based around being mechanically effective) and get it in the form of some pretty thoroughly mechanical answers. It's hard to talk so much about personal fluff and flavor in a giant online forum with people that aren't part of your gaming group. It can be done, but it's much easier to talk mechanics of the game, as that is something that is pretty much the same for all of us since we have access to the rules.
You can put just as much flavor and as interesting of a story behind a mechanically well-built PC as you can ANY OTHER PC. There is nothing wrong with people wanting options to play with in a game. It's not as if people are asking for Paizo to put out broken things. No one wants that. There are just many people who like to have fun, balanced options to really play around with. Of course you'll see many people arrange it in highly effective manners. That's a crime? If you can accomplish a certain concept, why would you gimp yourself on purpose while you can still play the concept and have it be more effective? I'm not saying everyone should optimize their characters, but saying "Prestige classes are bad because some people use them to make really effective characters along a certain conceptual line and then they put a story over those characters....and that doesn't fit MY WAY of how the game should be played!!!!111!2@" is not a good argument against prestige classes.
My problem with it is that people don't say "he's more fighter than rogue so I'll go 12/8" or "he's more rogue than fighter so he'll be 12/8".
They say
"well, I want x ability before I swap out and I have to make sure I have all 4 attacks at level 20, so i have to make sure I get at least Y levels of fighter, oh and I'll take Z PRC for 2 levels to get this ability but the rest of that PrC is trash so I'll ditch that, too".
For alot of folks, especially builds you see online, it isn't about flavor and building a character around a theme.
It is about creating a set of numbers with the absolute maximum amount of power that is spray painted with "flavor" to make it not look like it was dreamed up by a roll-player.It was a major, major problem with 3.0/5 PrC's and I'm glad they are limiting it.
-S
That is the folks on the internet. Typically on the interent they are only concerned with the mechanics and not anything else.
If you notice.. World of warcraft has people who post builds as well about X y and Z effects. In that game there is no thing as multi-classing.. But maybe you want to strike at the whole "Well its an online MMo they don't RP.."
Then I point towards 4e. If you notice Multiclassing is taking a feat. If you also notice they still continue to post builds that are mechanics with a disguise of "flavor"
Also typically, when I try to explain the flavor of many of my characters, peoples eyes glaze over and they become rather lost.. Such as Ludcious Triskavanski, a telekentic spell caster who I've found that most mechanics for more classes fail to live up to what he is suppose to do. (Control many objects with his mind at the same time and use them to fight with.)
Or Dr. Acula von Triskavanski the mad scientist, and brother of Ludcious. He is the the Husband of Key Triskavanski, a white necromancer. All of them are Anthropomorphic animals. I could go on, but I sense that your eyes will start to glaze over from this and you'll immediatly skip it.
That is the folks on the internet.But it's not just folks on the internet
Well because logically, individuals who are on the internet posting thier mechanically builds do infact have to exist somewhere not on the internent. Its not like we are in the matrix or something like that were we are sitting here talking to people who do not exist.
And well there of course will always be those people who havn't been exposed to the internet as well who would possibly continue to see things only in mechanical ways. So far, out of all the people I've seen here who've played, the people who are only mechanical tend to have mental issues. Usually they have taken many medicians that have pretty much stripped them of strong emotions.
As far as me remaking the Master chysest I've been thinking about how to do it pretty heaviliy.
oh yay, an assassin can turn his victims to dust.
why doesn't the hired murderer just buy some flint and steel?
Oh yay, a wizard can make a ball of fire.. Why doesn't he instead just go and buy some explosives instead of going through the trouble of learning the spell fireball.
Everone knows the best wizards make boxes, bridges and floating triangles..
For anyone to sit around and claim "that is the wrong way to play" is pretty arrogant.There's a big difference between saying "that is the wrong way to play" and saying "I don't want that in my game system because of X, Y, and Z".
When you're basically saying that you don't want to see the company even publish this stuff, then you're basically saying it's the wrong way to play. Otherwise, why would you think it so bad as to deny it other people who want to use it?
And even the phrase "my game system" if you are referring to Pathfinder as a whole is ALSO pretty arrogant. Who are you to tell other people that they shouldn't even have the option of having certain elements in THE game system?
I don't like celery, but I certainly don't go around campaigning to get it taken out of all the supermarkets I frequent.
|
|
To be honest, I don't even see a problem with that. People do that with feats, they do it with multiclassing, they do it with prestige classes, and they pick archetypes based on the same principles.
For some people, part of the fun of the game is the mechanical construction of characters. For anyone to sit around and claim "that is the wrong way to play" is pretty arrogant. The reason you see overly mechanical builds online is that it's really all there is to talk about. People come here looking for advice on making "effective" characters (and let's not forget that a big part of this game is actually based around being mechanically effective) and get it in the form of some pretty thoroughly mechanical answers. It's hard to talk so much about personal fluff and flavor in a giant online forum with people that aren't part of your gaming group. It can be done, but it's much easier to talk mechanics of the game, as that is something that is pretty much the same for all of us since we have access to the rules.
You can put just as much flavor and as interesting of a story behind a mechanically well-built PC as you can ANY OTHER PC. There is nothing wrong with people...
well said and seconded.
Shackles Pirate?
From the Pathfinder chronicals setting guide. It's basically a pirate sailing around the Eye of Abendego. Most of their abilities are all tied into the Eye and its VERY game specific. Unless your going to be playing in THAT area... it's useless.
PROBABLY why they didn't reprint it for the Inner sea guide...
I want Options, The more the merrier... but I also want options I can USE.
I just don't get this mentality.
Inevitably, no matter how generic you try to make a PrC, it's game mechanics aren't going to capture every player's concept of that sort of character. So, the line between "generic" and "specific" PrC doesn't exist.It's unrealistic to expect game designers to create a PrC for each and every player's concept of what their specific character is supposed to be like.
So, rather than try to use PrCs for this, what is needed is a highly flexible way of building characters with a highly flexible set of abilities.
Feats and feat chains are the only mechanism in the game book which give that flexibility.
1) We have to play with the system we have. While I don't discount the idea of completly modular system with swappable abilities.. It's not the system we have, and I'm REALLY not ready for a new Pathfinder Edition switch.
2) I don't see why it would be hard to make 'generic' PrCs. I'm not asking the designers to know my character concept ahead of time... I'm just asking for it to be generic enough that I could USE it.
Instead of 'Shackles pirate' operating outside of the hurricane... how about... PIRATE! With bonuses to being on a ship?
Instead of 'Hell Knight'... how about 'Knight' or Town guard.. or I don't know... SOMETHIGN that works outside of Korvosa and... What is it? Cheliax that they're big? I'm not sure where Red Mantis Assassins operate... but so far they've not been in a COUPLE of the APs we've done... (they are mentioned in ONE of them...)
I prefer 'generic' 'Bladesinger' rather than 'Spell sword of Kyonnin' when I'm not playing IN kyonin...
That's what I mean by 'generic'. Honestly I would think that making them more specific would be much HARDER creatively than making basic PrCs...
For the record, I have not EVER played 3rd or 3.5, My first and only introduction to this system has in fact been Pathfinder. So complaints about how WoTC oversaturated with PrCs... is an arguement that I can't comment on or really comprehend much.
As it's a new system, My opinons are PURELY for the Pathfinder system and how I want MORE PrCs...
For anyone to sit around and claim "that is the wrong way to play" is pretty arrogant.There's a big difference between saying "that is the wrong way to play" and saying "I don't want that in my game system because of X, Y, and Z".
When you're basically saying that you don't want to see the company even publish this stuff, then you're basically saying it's the wrong way to play. Otherwise, why would you think it so bad as to deny it other people who want to use it?
And even the phrase "my game system" if you are referring to Pathfinder as a whole is ALSO pretty arrogant. Who are you to tell other people that they shouldn't even have the option of having certain elements in THE game system?
I don't like celery, but I certainly don't go around campaigning to get it taken out of all the supermarkets I frequent.
I never said that no game system should ever exist which has these features. What I said is that I do not want the game system that I play to have these features.
You might want to study the difference between those two positions, because that difference is HUGE.
If by this you mean, "They can be published in Pathfinder all they want, I just personally don't want to use them" then I am totally on board. Don't use the PrCs if you don't want them in "your" system. If it's the way I interpreted it before, where you have elected yourself arbiter of all that is good and holy in Pathfinder, then my other comment stands. We're talking about Pathfinder here. Don't twist the argument to tell me I can have PrCs in another system but not "your" Pathfinder. The system you play only has to have the features you want...That's the beauty. It's much easier to provide options that people can limit at home than it is to provide fewer options overall. I won't be using Words of Power, but I'll be damned if you ever find me going around telling people that system shouldn't even be in Pathfinder!
|
Oh I forgot the New reptile druids.. We now have basically three reptile shamans. At least the dinosaur and the serpent shamans pretty must say what they are while the dragon shaman? Not so much.
I never claimed that all archetypes were fabulous and amazing. The Geisha in particular is especially dreadful (reading it I got the feeling that the Tea Ceremony was originally intended to provided a day long bonus - that would be interesting at least).
The Scrollmaster, on the other hand, is a fabulous and flavorful archetype. And you could certainly smash peoples faces in with your scroll of Overwhelming Presence until it died... or you could hit them with it 8 times and then cast it using your stats, feats, and caster level (after level 10 anyway). Is it as straight up powerful as a Bonded Item and the 10th level bonus feat you give up? Perhaps not, but anything to give you style like The Paper is acceptable in my book.
And finally, Dinosaurs are awesome.
@Lilith: Yeah, I'm aware other RPGs exist. We're on the Pathfinder boards talking about Pathfinder. Sorry if I'm pretty much keeping the discussion rooted in this system. Don't worry, you don't sound condescending at all :p
So, just to make sure I'm clear...You're actually saying "If they put more PrCs in Pathfinder, I'm taking my dice and going home?" That's too bad. I'd like Pathfinder to have all the business they can possibly get. In my mind, that means more options for everyone so people can cater to how they want to play with the system, but that's just my opinion.
I'd like Pathfinder to have all the business they can possibly get. In my mind, that means more options for everyone so people can cater to how they want to play with the system, but that's just my opinion.So would I. And since building characters around feats rather than PrCs would give more options and make the game more accessible to new players, that's why I support it. Because I think that when a player who has a couple of feet of a stack of books and who has built their character around obscure PrC A, B, and C taken at levels X, Y, and Z is sitting next to a new player who hardly understands the core book, that new player is not usually going to be encouraged to stick to the game, I'm against having a lot of PrCs.
You can say the same thing about Spells and feats from all different books. (I also challenge that feats spread over a ton of books make the game more accessible to newcomers. I actually think that if a newcomer says "here is what I want to play" it's actually easier to point them to classes and even prestige classes than it is to a bunch of feats.) And by the time you get to take PrCs the player should have learned the system a little bit and may be looking forward to checking some new things out. I mean....if you're a brand new player sitting down to a game where you're starting at a level that the guy next to you is already splashing Prestige Classes...then you're already in trouble and it's not from prestige classes.
I think the beauty of PrCs is that they come later in the character. I think your point above is WAY worse when we talk about Archetypes from all over the place. You start at level one...and show up and everyone has all these options you didn't even know existed at LEVEL 1? From books you didn't even know existed? Way worse than your PrC example.
Oh I forgot the New reptile druids.. We now have basically three reptile shamans. At least the dinosaur and the serpent shamans pretty must say what they are while the dragon shaman? Not so much.
I never claimed that all archetypes were fabulous and amazing. The Geisha in particular is especially dreadful (reading it I got the feeling that the Tea Ceremony was originally intended to provided a day long bonus - that would be interesting at least).
The Scrollmaster, on the other hand, is a fabulous and flavorful archetype. And you could certainly smash peoples faces in with your scroll of Overwhelming Presence until it died... or you could hit them with it 8 times and then cast it using your stats, feats, and caster level (after level 10 anyway). Is it as straight up powerful as a Bonded Item and the 10th level bonus feat you give up? Perhaps not, but anything to give you style like The Paper is acceptable in my book.
And finally, Dinosaurs are awesome.
No, I though it gave some things like the paper.. But seriouslly.. Would have been slighty better suited as an archtype for the EK or Magus.
But if kept within the wizard.. It would need to be followed up with some discoveries. Frankly though, as a wizard I'd never use it, even though I've wanted so badly to be able to do The Paper.. Its about the equivilant of trying to give your dog familiar a minigun and call it Menchi.
So would I. And since building characters around feats rather than PrCs would give more options and make the game more accessible to new players, that's why I support it. Because I think that when a player who has a couple of feet of a stack of books and who has built their character around obscure PrC A, B, and C taken at levels X, Y, and Z is sitting next to a new player who hardly understands the core book, that new player is not usually going to be encouraged to stick to the game, I'm against having a lot of PrCs. Because we already learned in 3X all the reasons why building the character creation system around PrCs is a bad idea, I'm against building the character creation system around PrCs.
Wrong.
As a new player to the d20 3.5 experience... I can with some authority say that Feats are CRAZY complicated. Ever character I make, I'm just SURE that I missed SOMETHING that would have made him cooler.
Between the feat trees and the goofy prereq's you REALLY have to very familiar with the Feats to know what your doing. It's not easily accessible to new players at all. And now that we have APG and I assume the magic and combat books... They're scattered to the four winds.
At LEAST with PrCs... They tell you EXACTLY which ones you want, and a new player would more appreciate that.
Though on a different note, along with my more 'generic' PrC desires... I also HATE a lot of the Feat requirements... Feats should be required if they make sense or are completley necessary... NOT just because... eehhhh it needs another requirement.
Example "Combat reflexes' for Shadow dancer... Admittedly making extra AoO is NICE... but I don't see it as a core NECESSITY towards becoming the type of character that a Shadow dancer IS, and i'm a little annoyed at them MAKING me take it...
BESIDES... here's a question. Umm... Is there any reason you CAN'T build your characters just with Feats?
I plan on making a 'blood and sands' Gladiator character for a kingmaker game sometime... if Combat book gives me a good archtype.. I'll use it. If not, I can make whatever kind of fighter I want with the base class... Still, I want to SEE what they came up with!!
Why would you quit a game for having options you don't want to use? It's like saying in 'your' game you don't want... liches, or Mummies. The moment Pathfinder presents you with Stats to a Mummy, you'll quit the system.
Just... don't use the mummies...