But they don't tell you which one you want and at what level you want it. And PrCs last for several levels and, so, have a far greater impact on your character, so, if you pick the wrong one or at the wrong level or without having picked the right thing before going to the PrC, you're going to feel it much more deeply..
At LEAST with PrCs... They tell you EXACTLY which ones you want, and a new player would more appreciate that.
???
Does the order really matter?
The thing with PrCs... is (sadly) you usually have to PLAN for it from the beginning. That's the problem with prerequisites in general. If I'm planning my new character, and I know I think the Arcane archer sounds cool (which it DOES)
I know that I need Point blank shot, Precise shot (which requires PBS), and weapon focus...
I have 7-8 levels before I get my BAB where it needs to be... so.. I guess I don't see where the issue is?
(I DID play one campaign that ended abruptly in the Wheel of Time game... it had a PrC I wanted 'in hind-sight' and the 10 Feat tree I needed got ALL screwed up... but I'm not really seeing that in Pathfinder)
At least the Arcane Archer tells you what you need... and then you have the freedom to chose when or how you get it.
Feats are too spread out, Take something like Duelist. If I wanted to 'find' those feats they are only a paragraph long.. but they're on seperate pages... With the inclusion of APG and the two new books... we'll have 'paragraphs' scattered to all four books... UNDOUBTABLY requiring prerequsites from other books...
Not to mention every feat doesn't have a friendly little picture drawn up for it.
Infact the number that do.. is pretty slim if not, none of them.
Oh not to mention but generally most PrCs gain a "iconic character"
A fighter who took power attack though doesn't get an iconic character. However fighter does, duelist also does.
Why is this important?
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 way people build something online is not an window into how they play. If a poster comes online I will probably give them the best mechanical advice I can without going into munchkin territory. I often think that they will take the parts of my advice they want and throw the rest away.
I don't always go for the best options though. It really depends on how high the power level for the game is. If everyone has laid back builds then I might take a suboptimal choice, but if I know the GM is going ot run really tough combats then I am less likely to hold back on my builds.I have never seen anyone dip more than 3 classes in 3.5 either. I saw it online for theoretical builds only.
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.
How did they discourage multiclassing? All I saw them do was make classes worth taking all the way to 20 to stop cherry picking.
As to the exorcist comments you do have a point I had not considered before, but what type of mechanic could apply to every class well? I don't think it can be done.
I personally prefer archetypes and prestige classes. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and the game is better with both of them existing.
I can't figure out what you think the difference is. A cliche, annoying character (Drizzt) vs. a character nobody seems to like???
I'm so sorry you are blinded by the uncontrollable rage that you do not recognize Erzen and Seltyiel
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...)
If you just want the mechanics why not just change the flavor. Of course if you have a rigid GM that may not be an option, but if you have a rigid GM then you have problems Paizo can't solve anyway if you like a lot of options.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Just one more voice in support of archetypes over PrC. The Archetypes just feel more flavorful, and less constructed. That they don't lend themselves to dipping as massively as the prestige classes is just icing on that cake.
Some Prestige Classes will probably still be needed, but let's keep the base classes strong, please.
|
|
I can't figure out what you think the difference is. A cliche, annoying character (Drizzt) vs. a character nobody seems to like???
I'm so sorry you are blinded by the uncontrollable rage that you do not recognize Erzen and Seltyiel
Not many people really give a damn about iconics...i for one don't know any names, for me they are just pictures who represent classes. I never liked iconics, not in D&D and not here either.
|
In the end it does not matter really. In the sense that if they can make more money creating PRC they will. Will they lose some of the fanabase by doing so probably. Yet why would they limit themselves. People forget they are a business too. So while you may see less Prcs they will still keep making them. Prcs are not going to go away nor should they.
I dont think PrCs should go away or be stopped all together. Archetypes are good tool, but they arent a fit for everything. Where appropriate with the ideas they come up with, paizo should add prestige classes. I dont like them, and wont use the majority of them, but that doesnt mean they shouldn't exist. There are clearly people who like the idea of a class you build up to, so I say keep 'em comming at a reasonable rate (like the numbers that were in the APG) for big rulebooks, and put them in other places where they belong (like a psionics book or something of the sort).
Not many people really give a damn about iconics...i for one don't know any names, for me they are just pictures who represent classes. I never liked iconics, not in D&D and not here either.I can't figure out what you think the difference is. A cliche, annoying character (Drizzt) vs. a character nobody seems to like???
I'm so sorry you are blinded by the uncontrollable rage that you do not recognize Erzen and Seltyiel
Ah but it isn't a matter of names, as it is a matter of figures.
Course I know there are people out there who don't use figures and probally don't use dice who really don't use a whole lot of mechanics and LARP through out the game in some forest.. but I'm sure those are few and far in between.
What is your point and how is it relevant to the thread? Your point has something to do with minis, but what minis have to do with iconics or PrCs is a complete mystery.
Since you did bring up minis, though, I'll point out that I typically use the most absurd mini I can find to represent my character when I'm using a battle mat (e.g. a robot, a superhero from hero clix, or something else completely anachronous). This allows me (and everyone else playing) to keep track of my character more easily. My imagination has developed to the point where I don't see a need for a mini which looks like my character.
Iconics (and by extension PrCs) are made into minis
Feats are not.
And Apparently you are lucky, I've got two players who constantly try to attack my character because I use a plastic werewolf fig usually unless I can find a great representation mini. Cause I like painting things.
Oh Really?
ROFL!!!
Ninja'd!
I could have sworn there was one based on the 'master chymist too... but apparently I was very wrong.
Red Mantis and Hell knight I suspect would just be a standard NPC mini... but Harrow, nature warden and mystic Theurge... are flat out Prestige classes that don't have names.
I guess that the fact that there is already an image is somewhat helping the miniature making. I could be wrong.
Not so many archetypes have a cool image.
I guess that the fact that there is already an image is somewhat helping the miniature making. I could be wrong.
Not so many archetypes have a cool image.
Exactly.. But this was mostly a why are PrCs better than Feats thing.
Archtypes could have a ton of cool pictures which I guess would be one reason for a geshia archtype to exist in the first place. Just so we can have a geshia mini.
I'm particularly fond of the Abraham Lincoln witch and the new mad doctor alchemist.
Lilith: I think the point they are trying to make is that there is a certain element of "wow factor" for new players flipping through the book. You see the picture for the arcane archer or the Eldritch Knight and it piques your interest. You can look at the class, read about it, gather a concept, ask people "how do I make one of these guys?"...Feats just don't have that attention and imagination grabbing aspect to new players...they are almost purely mechanical.
Also, saying that PrCs are harder for new players than feats because a PrC takes up a few pages and a feat or spell is only a sentence or two is EXTREMELY misleading and false. You can add up ALL of the page-age devoted to PrCs in Paizo books and not even come close to the amount of page-age devoted to feats and spells. If you flip through and see Arcane Archer as a new player and read about it and decide to go for it, you're reading a few pages. Event then it points you in a certain direction through pre-requisites. It gives you a thorough concept to work towards and guide your vision.
It's a lot better than reading through all the feats and trying to make a character out of them as a new player.
Lilith: I think the point they are trying to make is that there is a certain element of "wow factor" for new players flipping through the book. You see the picture for the arcane archer or the Eldritch Knight and it piques your interest. You can look at the class, read about it, gather a concept, ask people "how do I make one of these guys?"...Feats just don't have that attention and imagination grabbing aspect to new players...they are almost purely mechanical.
Also, saying that PrCs are harder for new players than feats because a PrC takes up a few pages and a feat or spell is only a sentence or two is EXTREMELY misleading and false. You can add up ALL of the page-age devoted to PrCs in Paizo books and not even come close to the amount of page-age devoted to feats and spells. If you flip through and see Arcane Archer as a new player and read about it and decide to go for it, you're reading a few pages. Event then it points you in a certain direction through pre-requisites. It gives you a thorough concept to work towards and guide your vision.
It's a lot better than reading through all the feats and trying to make a character out of them as a new player.
Thank you. That actually makes sense. But it's not as if characters/illustrations can't be made with wow factor that have nothing to do with PrCs.
"You can add up ALL of the page-age devoted to PrCs in Paizo books and not even come close to the amount of page-age devoted to feats and spells."
I noticed you added "and spells" - which is extremely disingenuous of you. It's not as if PrCs don't have access to spells (thus, if you're going to include "and spells", then you have to add it to both "PrCs and spells" and "feats and spells"). Plus your statements ignores things like having to learn new skills when a character's skill list gets expanded by learning a new PrC.
I only added spells because they were part of our earlier conversation with you claiming feats and spells are very small areas of texts. The point stands with feats and/or spells. They out page PrCs however you slice it, so it's not really disengenuous.
|
|
I liked Prestige Classes because they gave you the possibility of playing a very specific character with all the depth you might want. However, they quickly burned out when they became the only way to play any specific character and just stopped making sense.
Which is the reason why I welcomed Archetypes with open arms.
However, Archetypes cannot provide everything a Prestige Class did and I must say that I miss not having even one in UM and probably in UC too. It saddens me as the Prestige Class brought high fantasy to life in a unique way.
However, I gathered that though the Paizo team does not bear much love for the Prestige Class, they still have a niche for it, to simulate entrance in elitist circles/societies/sects of the game setting.
Thus I keep much hope for the Prestige Classes which we will find in books such as Inner Sea Magic
The argument was, also, made that attempting to max out a character built around PrCs requires a greater amount of knowledge than attempting to max out a character built around feats (for example, you have the -potential- to pick up a PrC at any level, but if you pick it up one level too soon or too late, it can impact whether you will end up with the final build you want - such a subtle, but complex, decision could affect your access to a second PrC you want).
It SEEMS that your concern is people taking multiple PrCs... I'll admit THAT could get weird, if you had dips in shadowdancer, duelist, Master Cymist and arcane archer...
THAT could get insane.
That would DEFINITELY be more trouble than a new player should try tackling. I've also never seen (or even heard any of our players ever MENTION that goal) So we're probably debating from completely different planets here...
However, I still like the ideas of Eldrich Knights and Arcane Archers and things that a player can work towards that are NOT rooted in the base class. NOR do I see this as a PrC vs Archtype debate... I like them BOTH, they BOTH have their places. They BOTH do differnt things.
and I'm still kind of hung up on the "I don't like them, so I don't want anyone else to have access to them either" philosophy.
Lilith: Your argument has gone a thousand directions and is a disaster at this point. I don't even know WHAT you are arguing anymore other than that you dislike PrCs. Allow me to sum up my points in case you feel that way about what I've been trying to say.
1. Prestige classes are awesome. They're something fun to look forward to in building your character and allow for interesting options and customization.
2. Prestige Classes are no more difficult to learn for new players than anything else in the system. Sure they usually take up a few pages because they have fluff, crunch, pictures, a table, and all that. I think it actually makes them easier to deal with. Archetypes are just as difficult for new players as Prestige classes are....but the difference is that a new player is probably not a new player anymore by the time they get to take a prestige class. It's already built in that they've had some experience before having to figure it out.
3. If handled well, which I trust in Paizo to be able to accomplish, and also done in small doses (3-5 per book instead of 10-15), they wouldn't present the problem that was present in 3.5...I think it's a shame that people don't want Paizo to make prestige classes simply because they were poorly done by WotC (if that were the case they never should have made the Fighter class again either!).
4. All of this worry about people dipping in different classes and then dipping in prestige classes is ridiculous. How many "diptastic" builds do you see around now? Not many...and the most you see are 4 classes in a build (and those are hybrid builds that require at least two classes to even get into a prestige class to begin with). Aside from the fact that it's actually not an issue, it's also just a lame argument against PrCs because your classes don't define your character, your character concept defines it and determines where you go with the mechanics in order to achieve your vision.
5. Powergaming happens. The scorched earth policy of "don't give us any options because people might abuse them!" is not only limiting, but also selfish. People all play differently. I don't tell people who like to play mechanically gimped characters that they are doing it wrong...there is no wrong! I also don't think it's fair for people to argue against options because people might make strong characters...that's not wrong either. I trust Paizo enough that, while some things may be powerful, nothing will turn out to be gamebreaking (and if it is they will errata the cajones off of it).
6. Can you mess up builds involving PrCs if you are a new player? Yeah. How is that a point against including PrCs? You can mess YOUR WHOLE CHARACTER up at level 1 by choosing a craptastic archetype or an archetype you eventually realize you don't like. I think that's far worse than possibly taking a level of a PrC at the "wrong time." That said, I love archetypes as much as PrCs. Give more options...as long as it's fairly well balanced it doesn't matter to new players since they can still be competitive playing a straight 20 leveled, non-archetyped base class.
I hope that helps to understand where I'm coming from.
Well, we're not going to convince each other of much. The stuff I presented wasn't counter-arguments so much as what I believe. I wasn't really arguing things you had said per se. I still think you're wrong on a bunch of things :p But I agree on your first points that PrCs are a good way to add flavor and coolness to a PC.
4 Classes in a build aren't that many considering you could have 20 :). Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Dragon Disciple/Eldritch Knight isn't really that much. It's completely logical and makes perfect sense. Obviously this is just an opinion thing. In comparison to a single class, yeah it's more. But it creates a character that is otherwise impossible to make.
I trust Paizo when it comes to making balanced things, yes. The fact that they've already made and continue to make a few prestige classes that are cool supports this trust, I'd like to see more. As they've acknowledged, they like PrCs and would make more if they thought the audience was there. It has nothing to do with them thinking PrCs are bad for the game itself...the opposite actually.
But it creates a character that is otherwise impossible to make.
Give me an example of a character concept (not mechanics - I want to keep this simple) that could not be created with feats (whether or not those feats currently exist) instead of PrCs.
You've got to be kidding me. That's the worst attempt to bait me into something you can easily tear down that I've ever seen. Anything I say to this you are going to make some feat/feat chain up and say "derrrr you could use this instead"
I'll bite anyways though: An assassin devoted to a mantis god that can hypnotize opponents, turn into a mantis, gains special abilities with specific weapons, and also has sneak attack and limited spellcasting.
The thing with PrCs... is (sadly) you usually have to PLAN for it from the beginning. That's the problem with prerequisites in general. If I'm planning my new character, and I know I think the Arcane archer sounds cool (which it DOES)
I've never been fussed by the planning issue. It only matters much if you're bound and determined to squeeze out as much efficiency as you can. I'd rather not run such a highly optimized game and recommend that my players not get hung up on it.
You've got to be kidding me. That's the worst attempt to bait me into something you can easily tear down that I've ever seen.
You claimed that PrCs make characters that would otherwise be impossible to make (I quoted where you made that claim). But, you don't seem all that confident in your claim.
I think you're just trolling with me now, so Ima let this all rest. At this point you're selectively picking what to respond to out of my posts and ignoring everything else. I even bit and gave you an example to your ridiculous question...but all you respond with is that? Come on, man. Y'already KNOW.
But it creates a character that is otherwise impossible to make.
Give me an example of a character concept (not mechanics - I want to keep this simple) that could not be created with feats (whether or not those feats currently exist) instead of PrCs.
Here is a old 3.5 character of mine from 3.5...updated to include archetypes from Pathfinder. For converting we just drop in PrCs without changes.
Fighter(weapon master)4 /Rogue 2/ Lasher 10 / Dervish 4
Very fun character to play...not at all broken...and really can't be done in just Pathfinder without serverly gimping the character to uselessness.
(also note the rogue levels while hepful was just mostly done because of background and RP reasons)
I am really sorry as it seems you have been abused by players who have to 100 different clases. Though I noticed those characters are alot weaker in actual play than people on the boards will let you believe.
I side with Sylvanite here...there is romm for both Archetypes and PrCs in Pathfinder...it is annoying that they ignored it in UM.
What is the character -concept- here? I'm not clear at all on what I'm supposed to show could be built.
Fighter(weapon master)4 /Rogue 2/ Lasher 10 / Dervish 4
Oh sorry....I thought it was obvious. A master whip fighter who is skilled enough to make a whip a effective weapon choice + being a highly mobile fighter.
And you don't think this is possible with the creation of some new feats?What is the character -concept- here? I'm not clear at all on what I'm supposed to show could be built.
Fighter(weapon master)4 /Rogue 2/ Lasher 10 / Dervish 4
Oh sorry....I thought it was obvious. A master whip fighter who is skilled enough to make a whip a effective weapon choice + being a highly mobile fighter.
Shrug...probably not. PrCs are easier...besides my feats are already dedicated to supporting it...why waste the feats to actualy do it? It would be like charging a wizard a feat to cast spells of x level...or a rogue a feat to be able to get all of his dice of sneak attack.
Also how is creating new feats anything a New Player would even think of?
I hate PrCs in general. I only accept them when they are made for the setting and are actually, you know, prestigious! I'm tired of seeing PrCs being treated like "advanced classes" where you'd be stupid not to take it at the first opportunity because it's better than sticking with the base class or they become only useful for cherry picking. Not to mention, many of them are just there to pad the book. I much prefer approach with archetypes. It still makes the base class relevant and you start off with that concept right at level 1. Much more elegant.
*sharpens knife* Excuse me while I continue my hunt. These things breed like rabbits...
I hate PrCs in general. I only accept them when they are made for the setting and are actually, you know, prestigious! I'm tired of seeing PrCs being treated like "advanced classes" where you'd be stupid not to take it at the first opportunity because it's better than sticking with the base class or they become only useful for cherry picking. Not to mention, many of them are just there to pad the book. I much prefer approach with archetypes. It still makes the base class relevant and you start off with that concept right at level 1. Much more elegant.
*sharpens knife* Excuse me while I continue my hunt. These things breed like rabbits...
I don't think this applies to Pathfinder Prestige Classes as they have been presented at all. I actually feel like a bunch of the archetypes are filler at this point, though they do take up less room as has been pointed out. I love archetypes though.
I think your feelings are perfectly understandable in regards to 3.5 prestige classes, though. Now, prestige classes are generally regarded as mechanically inferior anyways, so those points don't really stand with what Paizo has done in Pathfinder.
I also don't understand people's obsession with "keeping base classes relevant." What does that even mean, and why is it important? Isn't it mostly important to just craft cool characters that you want to play? Who cares if its base classes, multi-classing, prestige classes, archetypes, feats, spells, traits, or any combination of the above?
But it creates a character that is otherwise impossible to make.
Give me an example of a character concept (not mechanics - I want to keep this simple) that could not be created with feats (whether or not those feats currently exist) instead of PrCs.
Okay..
A crazed doctor who insists on sewing bits and pieces of other creatures not only into himself, but also his familiar and any willing ally.
A anthrophorphic goat/wolf thing who is not only a skilled fighter himself, but also capable of telekentically controlling a multitude of different weapons to fight multiple people at the same time.
A Necromancer anthropomorphic Jackle who wields a massive scythe but isn't bound to any god. Refers to himself as a reaper and is partially undead.
A human who is a master of magic missiles. Blends multiple arcane magics together to achieve a perfected magic missile.
An individual who is very plain, and ill suited for adventure life, but is abnormally lucky.
Another crazed doctor who has seen flesh to be weak and that it should be replaced with steel. As such he slowly becomes more mechanical.
I can think of more..
Mind you, in order to preform, you must achieve some vague resemblance by level 6. A penantly will be taken if you cannot achieve the character concept by level 10.
By level 20 the character concept has to be complete and workable.
I hate PrCs in general. I only accept them when they are made for the setting and are actually, you know, prestigious! I'm tired of seeing PrCs being treated like "advanced classes" where you'd be stupid not to take it at the first opportunity because it's better than sticking with the base class or they become only useful for cherry picking. Not to mention, many of them are just there to pad the book. I much prefer approach with archetypes. It still makes the base class relevant and you start off with that concept right at level 1. Much more elegant.
*sharpens knife* Excuse me while I continue my hunt. These things breed like rabbits...
Ok...
1) Why would a say a Lasher be campaign specific? Or say a Duelist?
Sorry but they are some concepts for PrC that are not campaign specific that works very well.
2) So because people thought that the base class from 3.5 were 'useless' and PrCs are neccessary to be powerful...means that PrCs are bad? Sorry but I have played pure 20 level base classes in 3.5 and it did not suck...heck most of the 5 Prcs class actualy sucked in comparsion.
3) Archetypes are ok...but are hardly elgrant or even interesting(or new kits from 2nded...or alternative class features from 3.5). Personaly I think everyone of them for rogue is a waste of time(ok not exactly true I thought the Spy is great but that is because I am going Master Spy)....fighter is ok if you want to turn your fighter into a one trick pony...I won't even touch on the sorcerer ones...etc.
Just curious...a question for the anti-PrC crowd. You guys don't want them in a book you buy...so would that mean you guys would not mind a big book of PrCs you guys can ignore?
Okay..
A crazed doctor who insists on sewing bits and pieces of other creatures not only into himself, but also his familiar and any willing ally.
A anthrophorphic goat/wolf thing who is not only a skilled fighter himself, but also capable of telekentically controlling a multitude of different weapons to fight multiple people at the same time.
A Necromancer anthropomorphic Jackle who wields a massive scythe but isn't bound to any god. Refers to himself as a reaper and is partially undead.
A human who is a master of magic missiles. Blends multiple arcane magics together to achieve a perfected magic missile.
An individual who is very plain, and ill suited for adventure life, but is abnormally lucky.
Another crazed doctor who has seen flesh to be weak and that it should be replaced with steel. As such he slowly becomes more mechanical.
I can think of more..
It is a trick question...LilithsThrall will just say make the feats.