Lack of prestige classes is cause for good cheer


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

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.


pardon me why I call foul flaiming poots of ASmodeos on your thread.

I like prestige classes.

and the archetypes in the UM did not sound .... living but extinct save the inquisitor's infiltrator


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well PRC's do not belong for the most part in rule books. But setting books. Which seems to be where paizo puts them.


I'm neutral either way. The whole friggin "Prestige" Class category is bogus. We would be just fine calling them classes. I bet the whole fight for and against the buggers would go away if we just called them classes.

ok, I feel better.
booger=boy

Dark Archive

I'm hoping the only reason there was a lack of prestige classes is because the best casters are single classed.

I hope when UC comes out it will have a few


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Well PRC's do not belong for the most part in rule books. But setting books. Which seems to be where paizo puts them.

I wish they were in the rulebooks, there are neutral campaign PrC's that would be nice to have (heck, change the write up a little and many campaign based PrC can be neutral). I understand there scattered through a pile of 32 and 64 page soft covers. And if your not a huge fan of the Inner Sea CS or have your own homebrew not everyone wants to spend $20 on a 64 page flimsy book. I liked it when you got a 160-192 page hardcover expansion for $30-$35. $ for $ you got twice the material in a hardcover and no puny books everywhere. And if you went to Amazon $20-$25. I just can't believe they made a 32 page book for each race, seperate faith books by alignment(and 32 pages is a joke and a money ploy), and on and on. Sorry, I got a little off the topic, I've bought all the Pathfinder Hardcovers including CS but I refuse to throw my money at 32 and 64 page softcovers. Until something new happens or comes out I'm sticking with 3e Campaign Settings. So I guess thats why I'd like to see PrC in hard cover.

Scarab Sages

Gebby wrote:
I wish they were in the rulebooks, there are neutral campaign PrC's that would be nice to have (heck, change the write up a little and many campaign based PrC can be neutral).

Challenge: Produce a presiege class that does not work as well (or better) as an archtype.

My thoughts are that the only ones that you'll be able to come up with are the ones that require and enable multiclassing such as the Arcane Tricker / Archer or the Mystic Theurge.

Also, your off-topic rant on the price of books only gets a C- due to excessive use of the dollar sign ($).


Matthew Trent wrote:

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


Matthew Trent wrote:

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.

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!


I'm glad too. I never bought those crappy books and never will.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

PrCs suck.

Abandoning them for archetypes was one of Paizo's best design decisions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Trent wrote:

Challenge: Produce a presiege class that does not work as well (or better) as an archtype.

My thoughts are that the only ones that you'll be able to come up with are the ones that require and enable multiclassing such as the Arcane Tricker / Archer or the Mystic Theurge.

And your point is?

P.S. And I disagree btw.
Some of the prestige class introduce concepts that leave the core concept of the classes to much. The assassin is not a rogue. First, you can't catch the fluff in an archetype. Second, the focus in murder just doesn't fit the concept of a skill monkey/sneak attack/trapper/secondary combat the rogue is.

It's actually quite simple. Some concepts need a prestige class. Some concepts need an archetype, some concepts need an alternative class and some concepts need a base class.
Dismissing one of the option (or options not mentioned in this post) only limits your possibilities. The question isn't: are prestige class a good thing? But: does the prestige class fit the concept I want to introduce?

P.P.S. And you just proved my point. The prestige class are not a bad thing. You only need to find concepts that work with them. The multiclass support offered by the arcane archer and mystic theurge are good examples.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Karel Gheysens wrote:
Some of the prestige class introduce concepts that leave the core concept of the classes to much. The assassin is not a rogue. First, you can't catch the fluff in an archetype. Second, the focus in murder just doesn't fit the concept of a skill monkey/sneak attack/trapper/secondary combat the rogue is.

I disagree with your example. You can just make the assassin class features into rogue talents and be no worse off for it. If it still had spells I could maybe agree with you.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I disagree with your example. You can just make the assassin class features into rogue talents and be no worse off for it. If it still had spells I could maybe agree with you.

yeah. This is valid for shadowdancer and master spy too. Rogue suffered a lot from "no, we'll put this in a prestige class".


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I disagree with your example. You can just make the assassin class features into rogue talents and be no worse off for it. If it still had spells I could maybe agree with you.

Well, you lose the fluff which ihmo is important for a class called assassin.

Further, I'm no expert on rogues though it looks to me like Swift Death and, depending on the campaign, Quiet Death are quite a bit stronger then the rogue talents.

P.S. If it makes you happy, you can consider that assassin with spells as my example. I assume it's 3.5 and I don't know much of those.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

You don't need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. A rogue can be anything from a thief to a local sheriff, a murderous assassin to a merchant prince.


I really don't get why one of the "careers" of the rogue cannot be assassin.

In people's game, rogues are always thieves?

@Karel: "it's more powerful of a rogue talent" is perhaps the way to go, If you get what I mean ;)

Moreover, if converted in rogue talents, it would be the second/third of a chain. i guess the PC should be rewarded for the investment.


I gave my opinion in the pro-prestige class thread, so here's my cheer
*cheer*

Dark Archive

know direction podcast had a paizo guest who said they liked how an archetype allowed you to do what you want to do begining at early levelsas opposed to waiting untill at least level 6 for a prestige. they also like how it only takes about half a page compared to a longer prestige entry.
i especially like the early entry/usage and lack of prerequisite taxes. i mechanically prefer them for this reason but still feel prestige classes can serve proper use, especially to show a characters mastery of a talent/field or path

Grand Lodge

I think PrCs are the worst thing about 3E. Worse even than the concept of Feats (the 2nd worst thing).

But I've also come to the belief that PrCs, if they must exist, could not possibly be properly published except as specific Campaign or Regional options, some of which should be so weak that no PC would ever, EVER consider taking a level (Librarian) or so broken (King) that a PC could never, EVER qualify; they'd be available only to NPCs.

Hellknight, for example. That's the kind of thing that should, conceptually, NEVER be available for a PC. Same with the Red Mantis Assassin.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
W E Ray wrote:


Hellknight, for example. That's the kind of thing that should, conceptually, NEVER be available for a PC. Same with the Red Mantis Assassin.

Care to explain, why?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Apparently PCs can never aspire to be part of the Hellknight organization in his games?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Apparently PCs can never aspire to be part of the Hellknight organization in his games?

That doesn't slake my curiosity - especially that WER mentioned Hellknights and RMA's, but not Pathfinder Society or Bloatmages or *sigh* Shackles Pirates.

Grand Lodge

If a Player in one of my games wanted to be a Hellknight I'd most likely allow it. I'm really big on trying to let the Player run what he wants to run -- I just gotta make sure things stay balanced -- and stay cognizant that the classes & races fit with the campaign.

I hate D&D Elves, too (like bajizillions of gamers) but I'll let a player run one, of course.

As for why I think Hellknights should be for NPCs only, well, I can't quantify that other than saying that my impression of the concept is that it's for NPCs. My own feeling.

Hmmm, maybe like Purple Dragons: I think Purple Dragons should only be a part of Cormyr's military. A PC who wanted to join would have to cease "adventuring" -- cease being a PC.

Grand Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
That doesn't slake my curiosity - especially that (Ray) mentioned Hellknights and RMA's, but not Pathfinder Society or Bloatmages or *sigh* Shackles Pirates.

Come on, guys, gimme a break here. I'm not gonna list all the PrCs, just the couple that sprang to my mind first.

My first post says it all -- I don't like the idea of PrCs except for NPCs or for very specific Campaigns. Not general use, like ones that would be in a DMG (or Corebook).


I don't mind PrC's...just when there is a <hyperbole>billion</hyperbole> of them. I prefer them to be more for flavor...and prestigious, like being a part of an organization, like Hellknights.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
W E Ray wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
That doesn't slake my curiosity - especially that (Ray) mentioned Hellknights and RMA's, but not Pathfinder Society or Bloatmages or *sigh* Shackles Pirates.

Come on, guys, gimme a break here. I'm not gonna list all the PrCs, just the couple that sprang to my mind first.

My first post says it all -- I don't like the idea of PrCs except for NPCs or for very specific Campaigns. Not general use, like ones that would be in a DMG (or Corebook).

I was just curious if you're against evil or almost evil PrCs, because HK and RMA certainly fill those shoes.

If a player would come to me with idea of a Hellnkight PC, we would work out how to make him fit with HK background. I bet that every order has a couple of free roaming agents...

Grand Lodge

Ah, I totally misread your post.
Sorry.

I didn't even think to consider that the two PrCs I chose were "evil" ones where others, that I equally dislike as being available to PCs, would have beter represented what I was saying.

I have no problems with evil or CN PCs.

As long as they play nice with the other PCs and don't f*%! up the game.

Scarab Sages

Karel Gheysens wrote:


Well, you lose the fluff which ihmo is important for a class called assassin.

I think the example you wanted to pick is the Red Mantis Assasin who have a distinct set of abilities that are more representative of their fighting style (Sawtooth Saber TWF) and their deity (Red Mantis transformation) than on being a murderer. And yes I agree that campaign organizations are another good use of prestige classes. So that means that campaign organizations and muilticlass enablers are the two times I don't mind prestige classes.

Though this leads me to think about the Harrower. I really like the Harrower as presented in the Inner Sea World Guide. This class can work with any spellcaster who has a penchant for playing with da cards. Yet its clearly not an organization or multiclass enabler. If it were an archetype then I'd guess that the class it would most likely be tied to was Sorcerer. However it has nothing to do with the bloodlines so would be challenging at lest in that form. Also wizardly, clerical, and bardic harrowers all make some sense as well. Perhaps there is a third case where you are attempting to implement a new magic/combat style yet don't want to also introduce a new base class (though I think a Harrower base class could be very interesting). In this case a prestige class would also be an acceptable design solution.

The one thing I don't ever want to see is a Staff Warrior prestige class. Something so basic as that can be supported with the implementation of a few feats and a couple archetypes for a few classes.

Also, on the note of organizational prestige classes they should have something unique or cool to separate them form their more basic archetypes. As an example, consider the Shackles Pirate. This class does nothing that a Pirate rogue archetype wouldn't do better (also its just bad, but that's a different issue).


I like Prestige Classes, but 3-3.5e just overdid it. There where SO many of them that where merely variant classes and thied occupy 1/5th of each book.

When adding a prestigie class make it count.

And WE ray, if you dont want assasins, or hell knights just tell them No. Dont remove the option altogether.


I used to love prestige classes, but since they don't get a favored bonus, its kind of a letdown, plus now you have a reason to stay in one class, if you dont like the core class, then that's when archtypes come in to play, you can add a bit of more customization without having to multiclass and/or get feat/skill/language/any other weird requirement taxed for it.

Should they be discontnued? no, not really, are they needed? again no. Prestige classes were almost always bound to settings, so, just go create your own?

Dark Archive

Matthew Trent wrote:

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.

-thumbs up- Well said.


To me, prestige classes work best when used to combine two otherwise disparate classes. The obvious example is the mystic theurge, but rage prophet and battle herald from the APG are others.

I understand why people would want to see prestige classes relegated to setting specific books, but I'd like to see a smattering of fluff-neutral prestige classes in any given book, and let the setting books flavor them appropriately. That keeps me from having to buy a dozen other books to see the prestige classes they offer.

Liberty's Edge

Let us not forget that inclusion of a PrC is at the whim of the GM, this is clearly stated in the core rule book. I don't want 6 million of them, but as a GM with a homebrew world I don't mind choosing the odd one here and there to include. Simply if a GM likes no PrC's then RAW & RAI backs them up to exclude ALL PrC's from their game.

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 there should be based on class feature, rather than an ability?

What is it about judgements that allow you get this special path? Smite Evil isn't good enough to trade for exorcism? What about ability to cast 2nd level divine spells? And you make the call as you progress through 5 levels, missing out on your base class features, exactly when enough is enough and you want back into the base class or move on.

Boils down to this. Archetypes do not provide options. If you give me 4 archetypes, then you give me 4 options (maybe 6 or so if they are combine-able) But if you give me 4 PrC's then I get 100's of options about when, how, and where to take what ranks of which, or none, in what order. I get to choose which abilities are important to me to miss out on which other abilities I may have otherwise gotten. And I get the chance to go back and pick up those missed options if I want.

Don't rope me into a handful of character builds and call it options. GIVE ME REAL OPTIONS!!

/rant

edit: horrible typo in first sentence.

Dark Archive

Charon's GPS wrote:
I don't mind PrC's...just when there is a <hyperbole>billion</hyperbole> of them. I prefer them to be more for flavor...and prestigious, like being a part of an organization, like Hellknights.

Agreed. +1


Matthew Trent wrote:
Gebby wrote:
I wish they were in the rulebooks, there are neutral campaign PrC's that would be nice to have (heck, change the write up a little and many campaign based PrC can be neutral).

Challenge: Produce a presiege class that does not work as well (or better) as an archtype.

My thoughts are that the only ones that you'll be able to come up with are the ones that require and enable multiclassing such as the Arcane Tricker / Archer or the Mystic Theurge.

Also, your off-topic rant on the price of books only gets a C- due to excessive use of the dollar sign ($).

There are many, recently played a Wyrm Wizard from Dragon Magic that only gains 7 spellcasting levels out of 10. Class abilities are very good making it where you had to cut a few spellcasting out for balance. I guess you could convert it but what are you going to do spread the class abilities into 20 levels, I wasn't looking to play a single classed character for 20 levels, which archtypes seem to rope you into (which is fine sometimes, I like archtypes but I also like PrC too).

I had a player once who wanted to play a rogue in a city campaign, but wanted to add a little magic to him. He didn't want to put so many levels into a wizard/sorcerer, so he decided to go with the Vigilante PrC from Complete Adventurer. Rogue themed with a small spell list (1st - 4th) with the flavor he was looking for.

I'm not against archtypes at all, I like them alot, but theres still alot of room for prestige classes. I think PrC were broken to the point where it needed to start over. Archtypes take care of some of the more basic PrC of 3e, but not everything.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Grand Lodge

Organizational based PrC should be in those campaign specific books. Mecanical PrC however, like the arcane trickster and mystic theurge should definately be in crunch books like UM. I was kinda sad to see some of the much needed help on the MC department not get any love in UM. Yeah yeah archetypes and new core classes...but really, the magus is a pretty big let down for the eldritch knight replacement...and the eldritch knight is a pretty low bar to begin with (speaking of which, are we EVER gonna get an offical fix to their capstone?!?). So yes as a fan of archetypes that require MCing, I am a fan of the prestige class and hope to get a handful of them to help this endeavor along.


Matthew Trent wrote:

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.

Glad you like it, I do not specifically. One of the problems with 3.X was that the classes, and especially the PrCs were poorly built. Pathfinder has made most dipping next to useless, while a bit annoying at times, it is a fix. The same build tactics could, should, and have be implemented.

Shadow Lodge

I dont see why they both have to be mutualy exclusive. PrC was one of my favored parts of 3.X and i also enjoy the archetypes. I was happy UM had more archetypes and sad that it didn t have any PrC.

I guess i am the guy who likes to put PrCs in his archetypes...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You don't need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. A rogue can be anything from a thief to a local sheriff, a murderous assassin to a merchant prince.

First, your rogue can be good and doesn't need to have killed someone.

I like my assassin evil and bloody. Though that's just me.

btw, why so focussed on a rogue assassin? Noting in the requirements demand levels in rogue. You can perfectly create a bard assassin. Or even a fighter. All it takes is to have killed someone and some skill ranks.
Heck, even an alchemist might not be a bad combination now that there is this archetype that offers sneak attack.

Matthew Trent wrote:
I think the example you wanted to pick is the Red Mantis Assasin who have a distinct set of abilities that are more representative of their fighting style (Sawtooth Saber TWF) and their deity (Red Mantis transformation) than on being a murderer. And yes I agree that campaign organizations are another good use of prestige classes. So that means that campaign organizations and muilticlass enablers are the two times I don't mind prestige classes.

Isn't the assassin very similar (in role) to the red Mantis though not campaign specific? A group of assassin can serve as a dark brotherhood for every setting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Karel Gheysens wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You don't need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. A rogue can be anything from a thief to a local sheriff, a murderous assassin to a merchant prince.

First, your rogue can be good and doesn't need to have killed someone.

I like my assassin evil and bloody. Though that's just me.

btw, why so focussed on a rogue assassin? Noting in the requirements demand levels in rogue. You can perfectly create a bard assassin. Or even a fighter. All it takes is to have killed someone and some skill ranks.
Heck, even an alchemist might not be a bad combination now that there is this archetype that offers sneak attack.

Why are you arguing with me then? I'm no more focused on a rogue assassin than you are. See bolded text. My whole point is you do not need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. Any class can have that.


Why should I be member of a PrC to be member of an organization?


Probably the worst thing about prestige classes, besides them being silly and imbalanced, were the requirements.

"You have to be killed by the devil if you want to be the devil summoner. ?"

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. :)


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Why should I be member of a PrC to be member of an organization?

You don't have to. I'm sure the Red Mantis would welcome members of any class who share their worldview.


As I'm retooling my world, I'm leaning heavily towards the Organization based PrC. There are such 'groups' for starting characters already and several 'over-groups' already exist in game. Players that are members of the current low end, low requirement, low enforcement groups are at minor advantages in some ways, while subject to restrictions, demands, etc., as a matter of course. The apprentice Wizard just swapped her 'Mentor' for full status in a PrC shes been working towards, focus of the last session that group ran. She looks forward to the PrC's unique features.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why are you arguing with me then? I'm no more focused on a rogue assassin than you are. See bolded text. My whole point is you do not need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. Any class can have that.

Offcourse you can try to fluff any class to an assassin concept.

My point was not fluff related.

From both your posts, I get the idea that you would have designed to assassin as a rogue variant.

Even though I agree that a rogue archetype/rogue talents can be an interesting addition to the game, this archetype/these talents won't offer the same things the assassin prestige class offer.
Forinstance, non rogue assassins are more flexible with the prestiage class. A small dip can be made in assassin to take whatever feats you desire.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Actually, I added assassin talents to the rogue class, and have a half-finished assassin base class that combines rogue and monk features. I'm currently working a talent system that allows multiclassing freely between classes, and allows 10th level characters to multiclass into another class and be able to select advanced talents, which some assassin class features will be.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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.

Shadow Lodge

Karel Gheysens wrote:

Offcourse you can try to fluff any class to an assassin concept.

My point was not fluff related.

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.

1 to 50 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Lack of prestige classes is cause for good cheer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.