It is a trick question...LilithsThrall will just say make the feats.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..
Ah but I won't make the feats. If Lilith wants to prove his point, he will need to make the feats that are needed in order to create the character concepts. If he cannot create balanced feats however to preform the character concepts. (all of which have been worked out with a specific PrC in mind) then it is a failure on his part.
Yep thats the easy one of the bunch as the PrC that was used "Lucks Friend" from complete scoundrel was mostly used to increase the number of Luck feats that was given to the player.
In the end Said character was a Battle Sorcerer, with spells that had very little casting time, Such as feather fall, that were suppose to represent a number of ways the character was lucky.
For example, If he had fallen off a cliff, feather fall would be cast and there would just so happen to be a pile of hay under the character.
Luck of Heroes and other Luck feats continued to add to this. Lucks friend of course gave even more luck rerolls in addition to the luck feats.
|
Let's see, we have people who like PrC saying we can have PrC and archetypes and people can choose what they want. We have anti-PrC people saying nobody can choose because I don't like it. One of these choices seems kinda facist to me...just sayin.
Thank you, I'll take this from here, don my brown shirt, listen to some Wagner, resist the sudden urge to invade Poland (especially since I live there) and reflect on how Mike Godwin Was So G#&%+$n Right.
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.
Some of these are better suited for Sorcerer bloodlines, to be honest.
- crazed doctor who sews bits and pieces of other creatures onto itself and it's familiar, an expert in telekinetic control of weapons, a very lucky character, and a character who replaces flesh with steel - most of these, I've already created bloodlines for.
So then post these bloodlines you've created. Just simply saying "Oh I created that" would be like me saying "I casted magic missile in real life"
Even if you did post them, I'm quite certain you didn't actually even come close to the character concepts.
For example the doctor is also suppose to sew the parts on his party members, and said parts are also suppose to be permanent. Not some temporary "Oooh tentacle!" And since sorcerers don't gain familiars by default any more..
The expert of telekinetically controlled weapons, I'm quite certain you didn't also do the follow through with this, which was to make it so that said character was also a good fighter himself and didn't always need his magic.
The very lucky character, again.. I'm not so certain that you made a sorcerer bloodline that would follow up with this person. While yes this guys base was a sorc in 3.5, It took quite a bit of fidangling to weaken him enough as well as strengthen him. For example, we ended up giving him the luck domain from the cleric via Complete divine.
The last one, Metal man, Again, very much like the crazed doctor, they are suppose to be permanent. Not just an effect where you temporary gain a little metal parts and Only by level 20 do you actually become a living construct.
So if you want to prove it.. Prove it. Don't bark it.
So then post these bloodlines you've created. Just simply saying "Oh I created that" would be like me saying "I casted magic missile in real life"You do realize that it was only -yesterday- that I said that these could be created with bloodlines? I do have other things going on in my life.
I'm quite certain you didn't actually even come close to the character concepts.Given the character concept that was originally posted, I'm quite certain that I could duplicate it without using PrCs. If you're going to add a bunch of other stuff that wasn't in the original concept description (such as making the telekinetic weapon character also good in melee, having the doctor sew new parts onto party members, etc.), that's not my fault. It's yours for failing to describe the concept accurately. My time is limited and valuable to me. I'm not going to start creating a bazillion different characters just because you're unable to describe the concept accurately and completely.
When you've figured out what it is you want me to duplicate sans PrC, let me know.
You are quite correct about your time being valueable...so are ours. I rather just use a PrC that already exists(maybe with slight moderfication) than just create a dozen feat and a archetype or two.
Also how is it fair that player x who just wants to play a straight universalist wizard get to actualy use those feats...and somebody with a concept has to be taxed by feats. Sorry but a few skill ranks...and a feat or two are much less a tax than entire feat trees(actualy super feat trees).
If saving time is your concern, how do PrCs save more time than Archetypes do (note that this is the first time I've brought archetypes into the discussion)?
Because the PrC already exist. It is there for use. I don't have to creat a super feat tree to do what the PrC does...and balance it out.
I don't understand your question. PrCs often require a character to have taken one or more low value feats. How is it fair that a player is forced to take such low value feats in order to take the PrC they want?
I rather take two 'low value feats' that a bunch of feats that I could spend elsewhere and just take a PrC....what is better.
Spend two feats and get the PrC...alot more flexability and options here
Or watch all of your feats eaten to do what I want. No flexability...and not alot of options.
|
So then post these bloodlines you've created. Just simply saying "Oh I created that" would be like me saying "I casted magic missile in real life"You do realize that it was only -yesterday- that I said that these could be created with bloodlines? I do have other things going on in my life.
Umm...you said you already HAD them.
Some of these are better suited for Sorcerer bloodlines, to be honest.
- crazed doctor who sews bits and pieces of other creatures onto itself and it's familiar, an expert in telekinetic control of weapons, a very lucky character, and a character who replaces flesh with steel - most of these, I've already created bloodlines for.
Way to move the goal post. Honestly, you say your time is valuable...well so are ours and your wasting both right now because your argument at this point is falling really flat.
So then post these bloodlines you've created. Just simply saying "Oh I created that" would be like me saying "I casted magic missile in real life"You do realize that it was only -yesterday- that I said that these could be created with bloodlines? I do have other things going on in my life.
I'm quite certain you didn't actually even come close to the character concepts.Given the character concept that was originally posted, I'm quite certain that I could duplicate it without using PrCs. If you're going to add a bunch of other stuff that wasn't in the original concept description (such as making the telekinetic weapon character also good in melee, having the doctor sew new parts onto party members, etc.), that's not my fault. It's yours for failing to describe the concept accurately. My time is limited and valuable to me. I'm not going to start creating a bazillion different characters just because you're unable to describe the concept accurately and completely.
When you've figured out what it is you want me to duplicate sans PrC, let me know.
Actually I said right there in the description of the goat-man telekinetic that he is a good fighter. That was first and foremost followed by his ability of telekinesis.
And how exactly can "sewing" be taken as anything OTHER than a permanent effect? I also specifically said familiar and willing allies. And REPLACING body parts with construct stuff.. yeah thats pretty permanent sounding there too.
If I wanted it to be temporary the character would have been some sort of transmuter and just able to polymorph parts of people with construct or other animal parts.
Like Cold Napalm said, You said that you already had them. And for those concepts.
The Luck one is pretty much the only one you might have gotten even close to a character who sucks in adventuring but is abnormally lucky.
Either-way, It is not my fault that you either didn't read or attempted to take what I said and twist it and then got upset when I call you on it.
Besides, If I actually did any changes vs your sorcerer bloodlines.. It would have to be because the challange, as quoted, was this..
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.
Instead of posting feats that would create the character concept you attempted to pretend you had created new classes for the character concepts.
Moving the Goal Posts, Sharpshooter Fallacy, Strawman Fallacy, Shifting the Burden of Proof, Anecdotal Fallacy, Begging the Question, Confirmation Bias... It's like LilithsThrall is trying to hit as many of the Logical Fallacies as he can in one argument...
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.I don't think this requires a prestige class or fears, or any other game mechanics...it's purely a roleplaying thing.
Trust me, It requires many fears. Lots of them.
As far as mechanics go, its all fun and games until I start sewing on eyestalks, vampire fangs, Illithlid (sp) face tentacles, some sort of creature with claws, and tiger fur.
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.
Slight thread jack:
If you liked the lasher (I did) there is a Super Genius Games Archetype called the Blacksnake which offers a lot of what the lasher did (and starting from early levels). You might want to check it out.
Slight thread jack:
If you liked the lasher (I did) there is a Super Genius Games Archetype called the Blacksnake which offers a lot of what the lasher did (and starting from early levels). You might want to check it out.
Response to slight thread jack...really we need a PM system...:
Cool. I'll be sure to check it out...though pretty much I don't have the budget to keep up with Pazio and 3pp products. So it might take a a while.
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.I don't think this requires a prestige class or fears, or any other game mechanics...it's purely a roleplaying thing.There is a Craft feat in Eberron which involves skin grafting. That is the only additional feat required beyond the base class to support this concept.
The very lucky commoner thing was covered by other posters in this thread.
Regarding the guy who slowly changes his body parts to machinery, AeVux, this may be a surprise to you, but when somebody has a life (a real, social life away from the game table), they aren't likely to keep all their game related stuff at arm's reach. So, yes, I did create a Sorcerer who slowly replaces his body parts with machine parts - but I have to find it.
There was also the Fleshwarper PrC I think that greatly expanded on it...IE the actualy work together to make the concept better.
There has also been a PrC(s) that greatly expand on the feats...IE the actualy work together to make the concept better.
Than just say 'I can access it right now will post later'. Instead of saying 'Done' and leaving it at that.
Slight thread jack:
If you liked the lasher (I did) there is a Super Genius Games Archetype called the Blacksnake which offers a lot of what the lasher did (and starting from early levels). You might want to check it out.Response to slight thread jack...really we need a PM system...:
Cool. I'll be sure to check it out...though pretty much I don't have the budget to keep up with Pazio and 3pp products. So it might take a a while.
It is in the super genius guide to Martial Archetypes and it is remarkably affordable at 2.99. Hardly going to break the bank, and it ofcourse has quite a few other very interesting archetypes in it. They are also different from paizo archetypes in that they can be added to any character class, not just a specific one, allowing you to added an archetype (like the blacksnake) to any existing class by exchanging out specific.
Again sorry for the thread jack and seriously we need a pm system.
I love prestige classes when they are strongly tied to the setting.
I dislike prestige classes that seem to be nothing more than a lump of special abilities.
Example:
Prestige classes in Forgotten Realms books = (generally) awesome
Prestige classes in the "Complete" books = (generally) suck
No prestige classes showing up in a (relatively) generic book like Ultimate Magic sounds like a very good thing, to me.
John, the Fleshwarper wasn't necessary to have a character which did skin grafting, though.
@Kolokotroni: cool I defintly look it up.
Back on topic....and the quote above.
But it did make it more ingrained in the character's concept.(If it is the PRC I remembered).
It is the difference between say a fighter taking Weapon Finesse...and one who goes all the way and takes duelist. It depends on what level of commitment a person wants to make.
Listen I am not saying you have to use PrCs...if you really dislike them as the venom in your post suggest...that it would be a good thing not to use them for you.
But some of us see uses in them you don't. It does not mean you are wrong...and it does not mean we are right. But it does mean that we have to compromise a little in what is in the game.
I rather a game where I can sit down at my normal table and play with PrCs...
And I would not mind sitting down at your table where PrCs are treated with scorn...yet you take the time to create feats and such so we can realize our concepts. That is awesome that you do it...it is just some of us don't have the time or even skill to do so in a balance way.
Personaly there is enough PrCs in 3.0 and 3.5 that I consider good that sure I can live without them in PF...but I like the Pazio designs team take on stuff I would love to see more PrCs from them.
Without having the specifics of the Fleshwarper in front of me, I cannot show how such a specific build could have been done using feats instead.
What I am interested in (and all that I am interested in) is whether character concepts can be done without PrCs. Focused on this, specific discussion about a game -mechanic- (the Fleshwarper PrC) rather than a character -concept- is impossible to have (particularly since I don't have that game mechanic in front of me to look at).
I am not going to reply to taking one point and ignoring the more salient point. I'll just repeat it.
So again...
Listen I am not saying you have to use PrCs...if you really dislike them as the venom in your post suggest...that it would be a good thing not to use them for you.
But some of us see uses in them you don't. It does not mean you are wrong...and it does not mean we are right. But it does mean that we have to compromise a little in what is in the game.
I rather a game where I can sit down at my normal table and play with PrCs...
And I would not mind sitting down at your table where PrCs are treated with scorn...yet you take the time to create feats and such so we can realize our concepts. That is awesome that you do it...it is just some of us don't have the time or even skill to do so in a balance way.
Personaly there is enough PrCs in 3.0 and 3.5 that I consider good that sure I can live without them in PF...but I like the Pazio designs team take on stuff I would love to see more PrCs from them.
Graft flesh, yes, it is the base feat of the fleshwarper.
However, if you knew anything about the graft flesh feat, you would know that there was approx 7-8 different versions of it (Possibly even more. The grafts were littered in various splat books), most of which were locked out to a normal player.
The fleshwarper gave you +4 additional graft flesh feats allowing you to select more of the *and* ones previous locked to a member of your race.
As the graft flesh feat required you had 10 ranks of heal, or 7 in pathfinder, being genourus and using the number of feats pathfinder gives, you would have to spend all 7 of your feats at level 7 and beyond on graft flesh feats up until your run out of them since most of them are locked to your race.
In addition to the graft flesh feat, though, you also gained various "free" grafts. Things like having a secret of the aboleth that gives you a swim speed and other swiming related bonuses because you sewed flesh of an aboleth into your character.
You also gain the ability to create grafts faster, as they tended to be fairly expensive (and also had a way of avoid the exp loss due to magic item creation.)
And finally as a capstone, your crazed experiments eventually make you an aberration, gives you darkvision and gives a +2 bonus to con.
To say that just graft flesh gives you the ability to even come close to the full concept is like saying that a Commoner who took weapon focus "Long Sword" and Martial weapon prof "longsword" allows one to totally create a grandsword master character concept.
While yes, compaired to other commoners, he is really good with a sword.. But at the end of the day you still have a commoner with a sword. That is all.
I mean why do we need sorcerers or barbarians or fighters at all? We have warriors, adepts, nobles and commoners.
To make a barbarian, just pick warrior and give it "Me angry" feat that gives it the ability to rage. Then take additional feats at every odd level that continue to go along with the ability to rage. For example if you have a level 17 warrior, you can take the feat
Tireless Me Angry
Prereq: Me Angry, Greater Me Angry, level 17
You are no longer fatigued at the end of using the Me Angry feat.
Normal: You are fatigued at the end of using the Me Angry feat.
Greater Me Angry
Prereq: Me Angry, level 9
You gain +6 to str, +6 to con whenever you use the Me Angry feat. These bonuses do not stack but instead overlap.
There. Now we don't even need a barbarian, as a barbarians character concept is to just get angry and kill things. It was all handled by feats :D
Uncanny dodge, DR, 4 skills/level, a load of rage powers..
I think your comparison is a little bit weak.
Uncanny dodge, DR, 4 skills/level, a load of rage powers..
I think your comparison is a little bit weak.
As is LilithsThrall's comparsion of somebody with some feats compared to the Fleshcrafter PrC...I think that was the point.
And John scores a touchdown homerun bullseye... *big breath* GOOOOOOAAAAAL!!!
on a side note.. My fleshwarper..
As is LilithsThrall's comparsion of somebody with some feats compared to the Fleshcrafter PrC...I think that was the point.Uncanny dodge, DR, 4 skills/level, a load of rage powers..
I think your comparison is a little bit weak.
The point was compare a wide archetype like the barbarian with a small, niche one like the fleshwarper with the feat thing comparison?
This is sort of a strawman.
I never said that I hate PrCs. In fact, I gave a specific example where having a PrC could be beneficial to the game. What I've been saying is that PrCs aren't necessary and that they add complexity to the game - such complexity being a detriment to new players.
Many of you are incapable of following this thread and, consequently, I'm feeling more and more like I'm wasting my time.
And I gave very specfic example where having the PrCs are not only easier...but better than not having a PrC.
Also again you are a new player...you are given the corebook to make a character....I don't even think it would occur to them to even ask can we make up x feat so I can play my concept?
Making your new rules and such is a shock to most new player to RPGs(in that their previous games you could not do that)...but PrCs they probably encounter in one form or the other in video games.
I never had a new player ask for a feat to be made for his character...I have had players ask me a question about PrCs...and explained it to them in a few short sentences and the get it.
I am going to agree to disagree with you at this point as you seemed set in your opinion as I am in mine.
As is LilithsThrall's comparsion of somebody with some feats compared to the Fleshcrafter PrC...I think that was the point.Uncanny dodge, DR, 4 skills/level, a load of rage powers..
I think your comparison is a little bit weak.
The point was compare a wide archetype like the barbarian with a small, niche one like the fleshwarper with the feat thing comparison?
This is sort of a strawman.
Shrug...sometimes it takes a strawman to fight a strawman.
I didn't realize that not all of you grasped the difference between game mechanics and character concept.And John scores a touchdown homerun bullseye... *big breath* GOOOOOOAAAAAL!!!
on a side note.. My fleshwarper..
Really, you don't know the difference between mechanics and character concept? Shouldn't put yourself down so much for it.
I'll explain what the difference is. The difference is.. Concepts are what is the over all design of the character, what he is suppose to be, to represent. Mechanics are game rules that allow you to actually have a tangable design for the concept.
Probably the best way to think of it is like a balloon. One of those thanks giving balloons possibly..
Mechanics are the inner parts of the the balloon. Things like wireframes and struts etc that will allow the balloon to hold it's shape when thrust against the environment.
The concept is the outer skin, what you actually see. It is held together by the mechanics (The inner workings) so that it will not lose it's shape when tested against the elements.
The Mechanics of a game are very necessary to keep the shape of the concept in tacked. If say in this game, your characters concept is Dumbledore and then you took commoner and didn't put any points into things like spellcraft or knowledge arcana, Well you have a pretty piss poor mechanical working for your Dumbledore character, unless of course the concept was to make some old feeble man who only thought he was a great wizard and not actually play a great wizard, then you would have something there.
But unfortunately you wanted to play a great wizard and completely failed to create the mechanical workings for the concept. In a game without rules or heavy amounts of underlining mechanically working, you may not have even needed to worry about that.
But you are playing pathfinder. A concept is nothing more than living tissue that goes over your inner mechanical-self. It doesn't matter if you are drizzt himself, once you start playing pathfinder (or other d20 games) you are a bunch of mechanics with a pretty skin draped over.
Even the suggestion that you can make feats to replace PrCs, you are still making up mechanics. To suggest that feats are not mechanics but are character concept is ridiculous. You are trying to use a small generalistic finite mechanic to replace a larger specific finite mechanic.
I would make a fleshwarper from an Alchemyst.
Nevertheless, I do see the point. One would wish to enter in a PrC through wizard or fighter.
This is awesome, but the probblem is in pratice that you either end up with
1) useless "for everybody or for nobody" stuff
2) OP stuff - more class can enter, higher is the risk
3) Not OP but opening the "why don't take a PrC" scenario.
All three are tragically bad and very easy to accomplish by the PrC system itself.
Moreover PrC are an apparent solution, but they make the problem WORSE because now "there is a PrC for that". See how hard has been beaten the rogue for this.
I would make a fleshwarper from an Alchemyst.
Nevertheless, I do see the point. One would wish to enter in a PrC through wizard or fighter.
This is awesome, but the probblem is in pratice that you either end up with
1) useless "for everybody or for nobody" stuff
2) OP stuff - more class can enter, higher is the risk
3) Not OP but opening the "why don't take a PrC" scenario.
All three are tragically bad and very easy to accomplish by the PrC system itself.
Moreover PrC are an apparent solution, but they make the problem WORSE because now "there is a PrC for that". See how hard has been beaten the rogue for this.
You don't end up with ANY of this stuff if the PrCs are designed well and balanced. I understand the misgivings after 3.5, but how can you say prestige classes lead to this when Pathfinder already has some and it has not lead to the situation you describe AT ALL?
I would make a fleshwarper from an Alchemyst.
Nevertheless, I do see the point. One would wish to enter in a PrC through wizard or fighter.
This is awesome, but the probblem is in pratice that you either end up with
1) useless "for everybody or for nobody" stuff
2) OP stuff - more class can enter, higher is the risk
3) Not OP but opening the "why don't take a PrC" scenario.
All three are tragically bad and very easy to accomplish by the PrC system itself.
Well realize of course that those are easily able to effect Archtypes as well.
1) especially true, Geshia for example.
2) while this one is semi-held due to heavy limitations on stacking arch types, as time goes on and more arch types are created there will slowly eventually become those things.
3)Same with Archtypes too. Actually even more true with archtypes than PrCs.
Truthfully only 2 is the hardest to break with Archtypes, but 1 and 3 are even easier with archtypes than with PrCs.
Removed a post. Please post civilly.
@Aevux
1) sorry, not applicable for archetypes. Archetypes are for THAT specific class. There is no relation with geisha.
2) as an example? Moreover, Is not a matter of bloat. If i design something for a class, cannot come up a thing like "whoops, even a wizard can take that for thi combo".
3) again, as an example? 3.5 had the caster PrCs. PF for archetypes has....? Maybe the Qinjong fix? For archery is anyway better Zen Archer.
I don't deny there is no bloat, and not because all corners are already covered, but because of lazy design (Dragon Shaman, Geisha).
Nevertheless, I restate, you ignore my main point above: PrC put you more in the corner of anti-customization. To change it, you have to go one step FURTHER archetypes (interchangeable class features) not a step BACK.
Question please.
Does all the PrC haters really think that the Shadowdancer or Mystic Theurge could have been done with feats?