If this is truely a suggestions forum then I would like to suggest a book with a strong amount of prestege classes. Mini classes that can take our core classes in all four books (As Ultimate Combat is not far now.) In a radically different direction. I know for myself I secretly hoped to see some form of pathfinder conversion into the Master of Many Forms of past. It was always my favorite class and while it may be a bad argument with just the one class, prestige classes could easily add a different twist to players less interested in lvl 20 abilities and more interested in exotic flavors for their character's canvas. What do you guys think, and further what would be some good Prestige classes. This company has always been very player friendly. Its the main reason I play their product. Maybe with enough ideas we could get some sort of book in the works. Course if its just me feel free to shoot it down.
I believe that the general consensus is that Archetypes > Prestige Classes. Everybody seems tired of the 3.5 PrC bloat. And a book of prestige classes would be an icon of that bloat, frankly.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. There is no consensus. Don't issue an opinion and say it is the general opinion. It is, at best, a 50/50 thing. I would like a book of prestige classes, because 1)If you're only using Pathfinder there is no PrC bloat, there's only a handful of PrCs. 2)I believe in the Paizo team and their ability to create interesting and balanced classes, prestige or not. 3) A good part of the book could be filled by just taking the PrC scattered around the adventure paths and other setting specific material. 4)If there is bloat of anything, right now is of archetypes.
I think Gorbacz is actually right for a change.
If Paizo was interested in PrCs, they'd have put some of them in Ultimate Magic. The book all about magic. There would have been magic PrCs in there. There weren't. I call that an omen.
I'm not sure they'd do a "PrCs of Golarion" book. Would probably not be a hardcover.
And since most of the PrCs they do are tied to the campaign setting and its organisations, they wouldn't put it into a PFRPG book, since those are setting neutral.
PrCs should be something that is rare and tied to fluff. I loathe the PrC bloat of 3.5 and I would hate to see that occur in Pathfinder. Archetypes allow you to tailor your Core classes to a more specific play style without rendering your character advancement moot until you hit lvl X when you start taking levels in class X.
I'll stop there so this doesn't turn into another PrC vs Archetypes debate, but I think Paizo is keeping PrCs as something that is tied to the setting, and not a way to add mechanical functionality. That is something I am totally ok with, and frankly, I wouldn't want to see a book collecting all those PrCs collected in. They loose a great deal of their meaning if they're just another stat block to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really prefer that Paizo put their efforts into anything but a book of Prestige Classes. I like the classes as they are. That being said I have no issue with them putting PrC in other material, I can't say I would buy a book of just PrC's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not have a book of half Archetypes and Half Prestige Classes. Or Prestige class Archetypes... maybe a bit too far...
But back to the first Idea, that would cover both camps of the Archetype vs. PrC argument and provide a whole bunch of new character options. I don't really see a disadvantage to something like that.
No, just no. There is no need for setting neutral prestige classes. Archetypes are infinitely better.
This.
+infinity
I dont mind if some prestige classes are included in a bigger book. They arent my preference (I prefer base class options, new base classes or archetypes) but I also know that some people want more PrCs so they should be part of what paizo produces. That said, if there was a book that was exclusively prestige classes I would probably stop my PFRPG subscription as that isnt a book I have any interest in. Some? Sure. A book full? Please no.
I don't mind prestige classes, and I'd like to see more of them.
Archetypes are great and all, but prestige classes fulfill a role that they cannot. A prestige class is something that is earned, and which is "prestigious." They are classes you cannot enter into until you have proven yourself one way or another. Archetypes on the other hand are up for grabs from level one.
I'm not saying that prestige classes are better, just that they bring something to the game that is welcome, at least in my gaming sphere.
I believe that the general consensus is that Archetypes > Prestige Classes. Everybody seems tired of the 3.5 PrC bloat. And a book of prestige classes would be an icon of that bloat, frankly.
-1
I 100% do not agree, and I second VM mercenario's comment that there is no consensus. A decision was made, implemented, and all the people who believe there was a "prestige class bloat" are pleased. Those who do not believe such was the case are less pleased.
While archetypes are cool, they are very much aimed at low-levels and initial character creation.
An archetype really does nothing for a higher-level character unless they want to multiclass, and since archetypes are alternate character classes, it's also impossible to multi-archetype unless they carefully don't overlap.
So, I think a mix is good. We *do* have a mix, but the mix these days is highly in favor of archetypes, and I'd like to see the pendulum swing the other way just a wee bit.
On the other hand, I'm not sure a book of just prestige classes is warranted - I think merely a lifting of the near-moratorium on prestige classes would be sufficient.
|
The problem then is that you have a class with an archetype that grants special abilities then you are stacking (possibly) several PrCs on top of it. I'm not sure this was their intention when they introduced archetypes, since most of the PrCs in Pathfinder are setting flavor based, so I can see this leading to some fairly powerful characters. IMO pathfinder characters are already very powerful, so for me, this is not something I really need or want.
Im sure this is a fantastic idea for those who thought the 3.5 chars with 9 different classes of 1-2 levels each was a good idea, but for some of us, it not a direction we would like our game to go in.
That being said, I don't play PFS games, so if Paizo makes a book like this, it won't disappoint me or anything, I just won't buy it or allow it in games that I run. Then again, I'm on the side of UM and UC is starting to move towards rules bloat also, so perhaps I am in the minority.
Do I really have to copy-paste one of my posts explaining why PrCs suck donkey balls?
If you feel the need to do so.
Do I really have to copy-paste one of my posts explaining why PrCs suck donkey balls?
I'd like the read, at least.
|
|
Those who dislike Prestige Classes are entitled to their opinion. As are those of us who do like them. Just because you don't like something, or because it doesn't mesh well with your playstyle, doesn't mean it is objectively "BAD".
I wouldn't mind seeing more PrCs. Not sure I'd want an entire book of them, but I'd have to see such a hypothetical book before making the decision.
Do I really have to copy-paste one of my posts explaining why PrCs suck donkey balls?
Isn't it exactly the same as the one explaining why epic sucks donkey balls, but with "prestige class" substituted for "epic level play"?
If so, then no need, I remember it :)
Personally, I would not mind more PrC's in PF. I was really hoping that at least Paizo could pump out a PrC for a majority of the 2 class combos. While things like a Fighter/Barb PrC is obviously not needed, a Bard/Barbarian PrC could be fun and flavorful.
While a do like PrC's, I still do not agree that an entire book of PrC's is necessary.
|
I'm pretty sure anytime during the 3.X days that someone at WotC came up with a character concept that even slightly stepped outside the most mundane stereotypes of the existing core classes, they were required to develop it into a prestige class. Which led to a lot of crap like the archmage...a wizard that's better at being a wizard than the wizard class is. Too fill an entire hardcover with them would pretty much require Paizo to implemented a similar policy, at least for a while. (Keep in mind that Paizo's hardcovers have tended to have higher page counts than WotC's 3.X hardcovers.)
|
Right, so why PrCs suck:
1. PrCs are delayed payout. If I want to play a guy that's good at throwing things or good at exotic weapons or using his divine magic to hurt undead, I want to play him now, from level 1 on. I don't want to wait several months before I get a chance to. I'm no longer a 20yr old youngster who can live off excitement about things that will happen at level 20, I'm a jaded 30yr old who lives in fear of his gaming group falling apart because somebody gets married or has children. And no, I don't care about your gaming group.
2. PrCs are conceptually a dead alley. PrCs were brought in for two reasons. One is representing membership/benefits of special "prestige" oragnizations/groups, and in this regards they work. The second angle was to fix 3.5e design bloopers, namely dead levels and crap multiclassing. Dead levels were done with in PF, multicalssing still sucks and I can live with multiclass PrCs such as Battle Herald. However, I see no point in playing Mystic Theurge - who is a horrible patch for playing a arc/div caster - now that the Witch is out there.
Right, so why PrCs suck:
1. PrCs are delayed payout. If I want to play a guy that's good at throwing things or good at exotic weapons or using his divine magic to hurt undead, I want to play him now, from level 1 on. I don't want to wait several months before I get a chance to. I'm no longer a 20yr old youngster who can live off excitement about things that will happen at level 20, I'm a jaded 30yr old who lives in fear of his gaming group falling apart because somebody gets married or has children. And no, I don't care about your gaming group.
2. PrCs are conceptually a dead alley. PrCs were brought in for two reasons. One is representing membership/benefits of special "prestige" oragnizations/groups, and in this regards they work. The second angle was to fix 3.5e design bloopers, namely dead levels and crap multiclassing. Dead levels were done with in PF, multicalssing still sucks and I can live with multiclass PrCs such as Battle Herald. However, I see no point in playing Mystic Theurge - who is a horrible patch for playing a arc/div caster - now that the Witch is out there.
Kay.
I would really prefer that Paizo put their efforts into anything but a book of Prestige Classes. I like the classes as they are. That being said I have no issue with them putting PrC in other material, I can't say I would buy a book of just PrC's.
+1
I believe that the general consensus is that Archetypes > Prestige Classes. Everybody seems tired of the 3.5 PrC bloat. And a book of prestige classes would be an icon of that bloat, frankly.
First, I find it a little presumptuous for you to say that everybody does or should Dislike PrC’s. Given the appropriate situations I find they can be pretty entertaining. They are options that give a bit of flavor to a given class. Now there are going to be power gamers and Min. Maxers everywhere you go. It is simply something that some people derive entertainment from. And really that’s what all this is about. What you get your entertainment from. While you may think the devil of PrC’s I have never been to fond of Copious amounts of Monster Books. However that might well be your thing and so you would purchase it. That is your right.
1. PrCs are delayed payout. If I want to play a guy that's good at throwing things or good at exotic weapons or using his divine magic to hurt undead, I want to play him now, from level 1 on. I don't want to wait several months before I get a chance to. I'm no longer a 20yr old youngster who can live off excitement about things that will happen at level 20, I'm a jaded 30yr old who lives in fear of his gaming group falling apart because somebody gets married or has children. And no, I don't care about your gaming group.
And I may only be speaking for myself... but just because you live in fear that lifes changes will ruin any plans beyond the moment, doesn't mean everybody does. We play this game for its options, or else we would all be playing some RPG by ourselves somewhere. The Options are why I love the game so much. Now I agree Wotc did alot of PrC fluff, but as of yet I havn't seen Paizo put out anything that wasn't good quality, and its why I would never have asked for such a thing from Wotc. But I trust in Paizo's ability to publish quality content.
And to Close. In the simplest way I can. If you don't like the book. Don't buy the book.
i agree some people like em some people don't don't assume everyone hates them or they should all be one way.
And, don't forget us poor GMs.
I can take a creature and many times throw a prestige class on it in order to give it certain capabilities, since it's racial HD and/or abilities may qualify it.
Can't exactly throw an archetype on a monster - they're much more restrictive, and in many instances a few levels of a prestige class is a better answer than advancing HD or tossing in a template.
Remember:
Archetype: Rebuild character from scratch.
Prestige Class: Append onto existing character.
Thus, Prestige Class > Archetype if you're not building something from level 1 up.
@Gorbacz: It's a shame that you don't care about anyone's group but your own - and with you so baldly not giving a darn about anyone but your own group, it does make it a little difficult to believe that your opinions reflect anything except a teeny minority.
|
|
@Gorbacz: It's a shame that you don't care about anyone's group but your own - and with you so baldly not giving a darn about anyone but your own group, it does make it a little difficult to believe that your opinions reflect anything except a teeny minority.
That's interesting logic there. I like Sprite, but I don't really care if you do, does it make me a teeny...sorry, tiny minority?
|
|
Now I agree Wotc did alot of PrC fluff, but as of yet I havn't seen Paizo put out anything that wasn't good quality
I bet that you are not familiar with the Shackles Pirate PrC from the first Campaign Setting.
Paizo is made of humans, and humans make mistakes.
And to Close. In the simplest way I can. If you don't like the book. Don't buy the book.
That would be an excellent closing argument, if Paizo were WotC and wouldn't support splatbooks they produce. That's not the case, APG material is widely used in APs/Bestiaries, and I expect UM, UC and ARG to be as well.
So if they would put out a Book of PrCs, these PrCs would start to appear in other Paizo products. Not interested. And if somebody says "but you can always mod the statblocks" - I buy APs/modules in order to minimize the amount of prep work, not maximize. Also, I don't care about your gaming group, again.
|
I believe that the general consensus is that Archetypes > Prestige Classes. Everybody seems tired of the 3.5 PrC bloat. And a book of prestige classes would be an icon of that bloat, frankly.Lies, damn lies and statistics. There is no consensus. Don't issue an opinion and say it is the general opinion. It is, at best, a 50/50 thing. I would like a book of prestige classes, because 1)If you're only using Pathfinder there is no PrC bloat, there's only a handful of PrCs. 2)I believe in the Paizo team and their ability to create interesting and balanced classes, prestige or not. 3) A good part of the book could be filled by just taking the PrC scattered around the adventure paths and other setting specific material. 4)If there is bloat of anything, right now is of archetypes.
Just because you say it is a lie does not make it so and certainly NOT a damned lie. I believe Gorbacz was referring to the Paizo team in general and their feelings towards a book of this type. While not a specific fact it is one of general consensus of the Paizo team based on postings made here in the forums. Gorbacz was also stating an opinion and not trying to pass it off as fact at all. By the way, a person can state opinion without actually needing to say it is "thier" opinion too. :)
His opinion is one I truly agree with. I think that having a book on PrC's or even Archetypes would not be a good thing. Now if it was a compiled list I might and I say "might" with trepidation, because if it was a compiled list then all they would be doing is rehashing from older books and putting them all in one book and reselling the same information. Other companies have done this in the past and I have to say I was NOT happy. As a book buyer and avid collector, I spend all the money I did and do on the books that information was from and all someone has to do is go buy the compiled book and get it all considerably cheaper then what I did. How is that fair or right?
As a new book I would not want the potential of Rules Bloat that this would bring in my opinion. I am not a fan of this type of book and same goes with a book on just spells or even feats. Weapons and the like I would not necessarily have a problem with like the Armory book.
Spells, feats and PrC's and classes books is what another company had and it was books I tended to avoid. They brought with them, (IMHO) a type of play style I would want to avoid in my game, min/max'ing. Even a book on Magic items.. while something I did like it also brought with it a min/max style of gaming that I abhor. While not everyone that would buy this type of book gets in to that style of play when they buy these books I think that it is safe to say a lot more do, then don't.
That's interesting logic there. I like Sprite, but I don't really care if you do, does it make me a teeny...sorry, tiny minority?
@Gorbacz: It's a shame that you don't care about anyone's group but your own - and with you so baldly not giving a darn about anyone but your own group, it does make it a little difficult to believe that your opinions reflect anything except a teeny minority.
Nah, it's more the "I want what I want and I don't care if anyone else wants it, that's what I think ought to be done" thing.
In any case, it's pretty clear that you and I are diametrically opposed on what we want from the rules system, so I'm guessing what we'll get will be somewhere in the middle.
Kinda like it is now :)
|
|
That's interesting logic there. I like Sprite, but I don't really care if you do, does it make me a teeny...sorry, tiny minority?
@Gorbacz: It's a shame that you don't care about anyone's group but your own - and with you so baldly not giving a darn about anyone but your own group, it does make it a little difficult to believe that your opinions reflect anything except a teeny minority.Nah, it's more the "I want what I want and I don't care if anyone else wants it, that's what I think ought to be done" thing.
In any case, it's pretty clear that you and I are diametrically opposed on what we want from the rules system, so I'm guessing what we'll get will be somewhere in the middle.
Kinda like it is now :)
Capitalism is an extremely egoist concept, I just go with the flow :)
But I'm not above shifting my perspective. I used to be vehemently against "Savage Species" and "Epic" books, but now that I see what Paizo plans in these areas, I am somewhat less opposed.
But I'm still recovering from seeing my players roll eyes when they saw the 3.5 PrC list (that's how many, 500 of them?) and I'd prefer not go thru that again in PF.
|
|
But I'm still recovering from seeing my players roll eyes when they saw the 3.5 PrC list (that's how many, 500 of them?) and I'd prefer not go thru that again in PF.
782 There's a Wikipedia page, too.
|
|
But I'm still recovering from seeing my players roll eyes when they saw the 3.5 PrC list (that's how many, 500 of them?) and I'd prefer not go thru that again in PF.782 There's a Wikipedia page, too.
OMG... And I thought I'm exaggerating with 500.
Thanks for making my point :) The Archetype list of PF is not within a mile of this...
Just because you say it is a lie does not make it so and certainly NOT a damned lie. I believe Gorbacz was referring to the Paizo team in general and their feelings towards a book of this type. While not a specific fact it is one of general consensus of the Paizo team based on postings made here in the forums. Gorbacz was also stating an opinion and not trying to pass it off as fact at all. By the way, a person can state opinion without actually needing to say it is "thier" opinion too. :)I believe that the general consensus is that Archetypes > Prestige Classes. Everybody seems tired of the 3.5 PrC bloat. And a book of prestige classes would be an icon of that bloat, frankly.Lies, damn lies and statistics. There is no consensus. Don't issue an opinion and say it is the general opinion. It is, at best, a 50/50 thing. I would like a book of prestige classes, because 1)If you're only using Pathfinder there is no PrC bloat, there's only a handful of PrCs. 2)I believe in the Paizo team and their ability to create interesting and balanced classes, prestige or not. 3) A good part of the book could be filled by just taking the PrC scattered around the adventure paths and other setting specific material. 4)If there is bloat of anything, right now is of archetypes.
Mark Twain quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". I just paraphrased. And yes, he lied. He said there was a consensus where there are none. That is a lie. He in no way, shape or form mentioned the paizo team. And yes, what he said was his opinion. But the fact is that there is no consensus. Also you put thier in quote marks, so I believe you are trying to reference something, possibly as a weak attempt to be a grammar nazi, but since neither I nor Gorbacz made that mistake, I would guess you FAIL. Unless, obviously, you are refering to something else entirely, in which case I apologize for the previous remark.
|
|
Mark Twain quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". I just paraphrased. And yes, he lied. He said there was a consensus where there are none. That is a lie. He in no way, shape or form mentioned the paizo team. And yes, what he said was his opinion. But the fact is that there is no consensus. Also you put thier in quote marks, so I believe you are trying to reference something, possibly as a weak attempt to be a grammar nazi, but since neither I nor Gorbacz made that mistake, I would guess you FAIL. Unless, obviously, you are refering to something else entirely, in which case I apologize for the previous remark.
I think you need to look up what "lying" means, because you do clearly have some semantic problem here. Lie happens when you make a false statements about facts. I did not state that there is a consensus, I stated that I believe that there is one.
Now you say that the fact is that there is no consensus, I call you to present a proof of that fact. Some statistics could come in handy. :)
They are options that give a bit of flavor to a given class.
That was one of the things PrCs did in 3e: Add flavour to certain classes. Like the wizard. No reason to ever take more than a few levels of wizard - just enough to qualify for a PrC.
That's no longer necessary, Paizo saw to it that the base classes were interesting by themselves.
Now I agree Wotc did alot of PrC fluff
Note that you won't get Paizo PrCs without fluff. They won't do crunch-only PrCs.
but as of yet I havn't seen Paizo put out anything that wasn't good quality
I have. Lots of rules content they do is bad. A lot more is good, but it's not all good.
And to Close. In the simplest way I can. If you don't like the book. Don't buy the book.
Not that simple, really. I'd have to cancel my subscription and then start it up again. That might annoy Paizo and they might say I won't get back on when I start cherry picking.
Also, it is a fact that for every book they do, another won't be done.
But that's all moot, because I don't think they will do a book with just PrCs any time soon. They do them only if they think they're appropriate. They tend to be thematically bound to a theme. And they seem to be moving away from them in any case. APG had some, but UM didn't have any, and I guess UC won't have any, either.
And since the PFRPG stuff isn't tied to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, most inspirations for a PFRPG PrC book would be off limits, anyway.
The trend is clearly towards archetypes. And they're not doing a big book of archetypes, either.
So the chances for a PrC only book is remote - even more remote than an archetypes only book.
And, don't forget us poor GMs.
I can take a creature and many times throw a prestige class on it in order to give it certain capabilities, since it's racial HD and/or abilities may qualify it.
Can't exactly throw an archetype on a monster - they're much more restrictive, and in many instances a few levels of a prestige class is a better answer than advancing HD or tossing in a template.
Monsters rarely have built-in class levels. They might have equivalents (like sorcerer spellcasting), but that stuff is totally flavour-free. When you advance a monster, you can just use base classes. Or base classes with archetypes.
I don't see that being a problem.
In fact, since PrCs tend to have specific prerequisites, you often do have to redo the monster. I can put fighter levels on everything, but if I want to add Absalom Fighting School Weapon Master (note: I don't know about any PrC like that), you need to make sure the monster has Weapon Focus (Absalom Superior Fighting Sword) (Again, I just made that up), Combat Expertise, and 5 ranks in Intimidate.
But I'm still recovering from seeing my players roll eyes when they saw the 3.5 PrC list (that's how many, 500 of them?) and I'd prefer not go thru that again in PF.782 There's a Wikipedia page, too.OMG... And I thought I'm exaggerating with 500.
Thanks for making my point :) The Archetype list of PF is not within a mile of this...
Well, considering the age of Pathfinder vs. the age of 3.5e, it's a lot closer than you think.
Depending on what you count as an archetype, there's something like 140 archetypes. If you count things like cavalier orders, oracle mysteries, paladin oaths and sorcerer bloodlines as archetypes (which they really are except in name), there's well over 200 of them - all of them things that are pretty much only used at character creation.
So, given that 3.5e is what, 8 years old now and Pathfinder is not yet three, can we expect hundreds and hundreds of archetypes, mysteries, paladin oaths, cavalier orders and bloodlines? Lord, I hope not.
And, don't forget us poor GMs.
I can take a creature and many times throw a prestige class on it in order to give it certain capabilities, since it's racial HD and/or abilities may qualify it.
Can't exactly throw an archetype on a monster - they're much more restrictive, and in many instances a few levels of a prestige class is a better answer than advancing HD or tossing in a template.
Monsters rarely have built-in class levels. They might have equivalents (like sorcerer spellcasting), but that stuff is totally flavour-free. When you advance a monster, you can just use base classes. Or base classes with archetypes.
I don't see that being a problem.
In fact, since PrCs tend to have specific prerequisites, you often do have to redo the monster. I can put fighter levels on everything, but if I want to add Absalom Fighting School Weapon Master (note: I don't know about any PrC like that), you need to make sure the monster has Weapon Focus (Absalom Superior Fighting Sword) (Again, I just made that up), Combat Expertise, and 5 ranks in Intimidate.
Sure, prestige classes have specific requirements, but I must be missing your point. As in your example, they typically require skills, feats and/or BAB, with occasionally something else like spellcasting. So yeah, you might have to swap out a feat and redo some skills, that's not major surgery. My point is that a prestige class is a more focused addition to a creature or NPC than "five levels of fighter," regardless of the archetype you choose.
I'm not saying archetypes have no place, I'm just not sure I see the source of all the antipathy towards prestige classes, especially given that well-designed ones are more generally useful than archetypes, which are very specific to one specific class.
In reality, it seems to me that all archetypes do is redo the concept of prestige classes by turning every base class into N prestige classes with extra restrictions so that they (typically) can't be combined.
For example, there is no way to be both an archer and a crossbowman. You could be a 50th level fighter and still never ever be both, since they're both archetypes that "use up" armor training one, and since you can't multiclass fighter/fighter - cross-training as a crossbowman is forever prohibited to an archer, and vice-versa.
I'm not saying that making them both into prestige classes is a good alternative, since I don't think it is a good solution for that example; I'm just saying that to me archetypes are a more limiting system than prestige classes and I think they both have an important (and different) role.
Now, the number of WoTC prestige classes is a moot point to me. Many of them were really pretty silly. But pointing at a badly designed prestige class and saying "see! that's why we should not use prestige classes" is rather disingenious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm still recovering from seeing my players roll eyes when they saw the 3.5 PrC list (that's how many, 500 of them?) and I'd prefer not go thru that again in PF.782 There's a Wikipedia page, too.OMG... And I thought I'm exaggerating with 500.
Thanks for making my point :) The Archetype list of PF is not within a mile of this...
Well, considering the age of Pathfinder vs. the age of 3.5e, it's a lot closer than you think.
Depending on what you count as an archetype, there's something like 140 archetypes. If you count things like cavalier orders, oracle mysteries, paladin oaths and sorcerer bloodlines as archetypes (which they really are except in name), there's well over 200 of them - all of them things that are pretty much only used at character creation.
So, given that 3.5e is what, 8 years old now and Pathfinder is not yet three, can we expect hundreds and hundreds of archetypes, mysteries, paladin oaths, cavalier orders and bloodlines? Lord, I hope not.
Except that archetypes are class-specific options. If I want to play a Fighter, I'm not looking at few hundred PrCs, I am looking at a dozen or so archetypes.
Same for any other class. If you enjoy browsing 800 PrCs to see if any of them matches your concept - fine. I don't, and my players verbosely don't. They want streamlined options, and archetypes are just that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm still recovering from seeing my players roll eyes when they saw the 3.5 PrC list (that's how many, 500 of them?) and I'd prefer not go thru that again in PF.782 There's a Wikipedia page, too.OMG... And I thought I'm exaggerating with 500.
Thanks for making my point :) The Archetype list of PF is not within a mile of this...
Well, considering the age of Pathfinder vs. the age of 3.5e, it's a lot closer than you think.
Depending on what you count as an archetype, there's something like 140 archetypes. If you count things like cavalier orders, oracle mysteries, paladin oaths and sorcerer bloodlines as archetypes (which they really are except in name), there's well over 200 of them - all of them things that are pretty much only used at character creation.
So, given that 3.5e is what, 8 years old now and Pathfinder is not yet three, can we expect hundreds and hundreds of archetypes, mysteries, paladin oaths, cavalier orders and bloodlines? Lord, I hope not.
Except that archetypes are class-specific options. If I want to play a Fighter, I'm not looking at few hundred PrCs, I am looking at a dozen or so archetypes.
Same for any other class. If you enjoy browsing 800 PrCs to see if any of them matches your concept - fine. I don't, and my players verbosely don't. They want streamlined options, and archetypes are just that.
But that's exactly why I went back to the 3.5e family from 4e - 4e was all about limiting options to simplify matters, while 3.5e left your options open.
This is a step *away* from where I want my game to be. I fail to see why someone can't be both a crossbowman and an archer, and I fail to see why a rogue or even worse a ranger can't be an archer - it's very similar to 4e in that regard - you end up with multiple classes having similar-feeling archetypes/powers because the archetypes/powers are restricted to a single class.
With prestige classes they're virtually never class-based restrictions. Meet the qualifications, you can get the training. Period. You don't need to bloat the system with a rogue archer and a fighter archer and a ranger archer and a barbarian archer, etc.
For example, there is no way to be both an archer and a crossbowman. You could be a 50th level fighter and still never ever be both, since they're both archetypes that "use up" armor training one, and since you can't multiclass fighter/fighter - cross-training as a crossbowman is forever prohibited to an archer, and vice-versa.1. I see this as exactly as it should be. You either made yourself a master archer or a master crossbow shooter, mastering both is practically unheard of. Archetypes are by definition not unique characters, but general paths.
2. Both archetypes still leave feat room for expression outside them, but again I really don't see the sense in trying to pursue both paths at once. If you're going to dediacate yourself to master a high quality missle weapon style of attack, why would you also spend time mastering a plebian weapon like a crossbow?
But that's the crux of it. I never said at the same time. I said never ever. No matter WHAT that character does, he can never ever train as both. Yes, someone who has blended their training will be less experienced, but what possible reason is there to say someone cannot possibly train in both?
One of the great tropes of fantasy is the master of many disciplines, and implementing them this way makes such a concept flat out impossible.
I wouldn't mind a book collecting all of the Golarion specific PrC's and archtypes into one place instead of spread out in all the existing companions and adventure paths. (most of this is missing from the PRD sadly)
Deffinetly nothing like a new collection of them.
|
|
Thanks for making my point :) The Archetype list of PF is not within a mile of this...Well, considering the age of Pathfinder vs. the age of 3.5e, it's a lot closer than you think.
Depending on what you count as an archetype, there's something like 140 archetypes. If you count things like cavalier orders, oracle mysteries, paladin oaths and sorcerer bloodlines as archetypes (which they really are except in name), there's well over 200 of them - all of them things that are pretty much only used at character creation.
So, given that 3.5e is what, 8 years old now and Pathfinder is not yet three, can we expect hundreds and hundreds of archetypes, mysteries, paladin oaths, cavalier orders and bloodlines? Lord, I hope not.
Except that archetypes are class-specific options. If I want to play a Fighter, I'm not looking at few hundred PrCs, I am looking at a dozen or so archetypes.
Same for any other class. If you enjoy browsing 800 PrCs to see if any of them matches your concept - fine. I don't, and my players verbosely don't. They want streamlined options, and archetypes are just that.
There's also the fact that Paizo has stated it's intention to front-load classes as much as is practical, and I would imagine that applies to archtypes as well. Whereas throughout 3.X, there was a pretty steady stream of prestige classes. So, hopefully, the we won't be seeing a lot more archtypes beyond Ultimate Combat (or possibly Advanced Races).
Also, if you simply must have more base/prestige classes, quite a few 3PP are putting some out. Super Genius Games has put out quite a few, admittedly more base classes than prestige classes.
If you count things like cavalier orders, oracle mysteries, paladin oaths and sorcerer bloodlines as archetypes (which they really are except in name)
That's not true.
Cavalier orders are extra class options, but not archetypes. Same for Mysteries and bloodlines.
You don't give up something for something else, like "lose sneak attack, get fighter feats". It's like saying new spells are archetypes - the ability to choose was built right into the class, you get new options, but that doesn't make it an archetype.
I could see the oath paladin as one archetype. But no more.
And I don't see the wildblooded sorcerer as a real archetype - it's just more bloodlines. Variant bloodlines, sure.
So, given that 3.5e is what, 8 years old now and Pathfinder is not yet three, can we expect hundreds and hundreds of archetypes, mysteries, paladin oaths, cavalier orders and bloodlines? Lord, I hope not.
It looks like it will slow right down: The big books of extra options are all but done. We got the APG, we got UM, and soon we'll get UC. Those are the splat-book-like books. As far as I know, they already said that this is pretty much it.
Sure, prestige classes have specific requirements, but I must be missing your point. As in your example, they typically require skills, feats and/or BAB, with occasionally something else like spellcasting. So yeah, you might have to swap out a feat and redo some skills, that's not major surgery. My point is that a prestige class is a more focused addition to a creature or NPC than "five levels of fighter," regardless of the archetype you choose.
My point is that you were complaining that you can't just throw archetypes on a monster, but you can just throw a PrC on a monster.
I showed that this is not so, because PrCs, unlike other classes, have specific requirements.
Sure, you don't need that much to change it, but it's not a simple add-on. Even if we're talking about a monster that already has monster levels, it would hardly be worse to put in an archetype. They don't change that much.
But, on the other hand, if the monster doesn't have levels, you really can just slap on a class (with or without archetype). Which is exactly what you can't do with a PrC and which is exactly what you claimed.
I'm not saying archetypes have no place, I'm just not sure I see the source of all the antipathy towards prestige classes, especially given that well-designed ones are more generally useful than archetypes, which are very specific to one specific class.
Antipathy? More like apathy. I couldn't care less about them. I like the occasional PrC in the Golarion stuff, tied to the matter at hand. But a whole book of them would simply be too much.
I can use one of the many, many 3e books I have like that. And they weren't really just about PrCs. They still had too many of them.
In reality, it seems to me that all archetypes do is redo the concept of prestige classes by turning every base class into N prestige classes with extra restrictions so that they (typically) can't be combined.
Pretty much. Which is a lot better really, especially for the sort of stuff most of them were used, i.e. stuff that isn't prestigious at all. What is it about a Thief Acrobat that makes it so prestigious?
Which brings us to another concept: A lot of the PrCs never made sense as PrCs. Like that acrobatic rogue thing. I'd say it's something you start as. You don't start as a generic rogue and only later get to be called "Thief Acrobat".
And there are archetypes that work together. Others don't, but that's actually better than the ridiculous cherry picking some people did, with one or two levels in 7 different PrCs by level 10 (okay, slight exaggeration. But only slight).
What's so prestigious about showing up for the crash course for the Very Exalted Order of the Demonslayer and then ignoring it for the Great and Ebullient Brotherhood of Deviljokers - which you only stick with for a short while.
For example, there is no way to be both an archer and a crossbowman.
I don't really see the problem here. Why would someone aspire for both? Train with the crossbow for those instances where the regular bow isn't a good idea? Like when the enemy is protected against ranged wea- oh, no, crossbow is ranged, too. But maybe he is hard to hurt with pierced wea- oh, and again, nothing gained. It's real hard to come up with something that would make it a good idea to focus on both.
Now, the number of WoTC prestige classes is a moot point to me. Many of them were really pretty silly. But pointing at a badly designed prestige class and saying "see! that's why we should not use prestige classes" is rather disingenious.
And still, you're pointing at the number of archetypes and use that as a reason against them.
The master of many disciplines is really "the jack of all trades and master of none." In the example you give above, picking either of those archetypes is decision to specialise. If you want to spread yourself among bows and crossbows and whatever else you pick NEITHER. and decide where you want to spend your feat budget on. Or pick one and spend feats on the other. Expecting to master EVERYTHING is just not doable within the ruleset designed for mortals. (Perhaps I should interest you in Amber Diceless instead? :)But that's the crux of it. I never said at the same time. I said never ever. No matter WHAT that character does, he can never ever train as both. Yes, someone who has blended their training will be less experienced, but what possible reason is there to say someone cannot possibly train in both?
One of the great tropes of fantasy is the master of many disciplines, and implementing them this way makes such a concept flat out impossible.
How about a PrC, or even an Archetype, that focuses on shooting things independent if it is bow, crossbow, sling or thrown weapon?
Now you say that the fact is that there is no consensus, I call you to present a proof of that fact. Some statistics could come in handy. :)
CONSENSUS
Nounconsensus (plural consensuses)
1 A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members.
2 General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action...
You've been on the forums long enough, you should know. We paizonians don't have consensus about anything, except that we like Pathfinder and the Paizo team is at least decent at their jobs. Anything else will cause a several pages long debate and the occasional flamewar. Archetypes X Prestige Classes WILL cause at least a heated debate (which is what I would like to think we are having, since neither side has descended into name calling). If you need numbers just dig the last couple dozen threads about the theme and count the posters pro and against PrCs. I don't think is 50/50, but I'm positive that it wont reach 75% on either side.
On this thread, those that have said there is no need for more PrC are in 7. Those that either want or wouldn't mind if Paizo made new PrCs number in 12. 36.84% to 63.16%. If there is anything even close to resembling a consensus, it is on my side :) Although the anti-PrC group does have more pots to its name, mainly from the same three posters, so if you were counting posts instead of posters you could be misled to think that the vocal minority was instead a majority.
I will admit though, seems only I, the OP and one or two would like a PrC book. On THAT matter I guess I'm defeated.
But that's exactly why I went back to the 3.5e family from 4e - 4e was all about limiting options to simplify matters, while 3.5e left your options open.
You're bringing the Edition War into this?
Might as well Godwin this.
Archetypes are the Herrenwahl!
This is a step *away* from where I want my game to be.
Seeing how PrCs were blatantly mis- and overused in 3e, it's actually a huge step in the right direction.
In PF, prestige classes are actually prestigious most of the time. They're tied to the setting and its organisations. They're something with prestige, not just something that is a little less generic than the core classes.
That's the vibe I'm getting here. Paizo doesn't seem to like a profusion of PrCs. They seem to like archetypes a lot better. I can only mention once again that Ultimate Magic had not a single PrC in it. It did have archetypes. And, of course, stuff like feats (way better at customising characters, with less prerequisite shenanigans)
I fail to see why someone can't be both a crossbowman and an archer
Same here. There are dozens of ways to do it in Pathfinder. One way is straight fighter - you get bows as your first weapon group, crossbows as the second. For feats, you get all the ranged feats (and rapid reload and the other crossbow stuff) and maybe the Weapon Focus (and follow-ups) for one bow and crossbow each.
Of course, you're blowing lots and lots of feats and so on for basically nothing (since you can't use both weapons at once, and the situations where they are used are so damn similar), but making optimised (or even sensible characters) wasn't the name of the exercise.
And it's not a lot different from what you'd do if you had Crossbowman and Archer "prestige" classes. The prerequisites would probably make you jump through hoops, and the abilities would probably not match.
Seriously, if the strongest argument for PrCs is making unprestige classes for concepts you could do badly with the core classes, you're pretty much arguing against your cause.
I fail to see why a rogue or even worse a ranger can't be an archer
But they can. You don't even need anything but the core rulebook for that.
Archery is one of the two ranger combat styles in the core rules.
Sure, they can't take an "archer" archetype, but what's in a name, anyway?
It's the "assassin" argument all over again. I don't need a PrC to kill for money. Neither do I need one to shoot a ranged weapon.
- it's very similar to 4e in that regard - you end up with multiple classes having similar-feeling archetypes/powers because the archetypes/powers are restricted to a single class.
And that's different from 3e/PF - and I mean even without any PrCs, archetypes, and the likes.
In our archer example, you can just be a fighter. Or a ranger. Or a rogue. Or paladin. Or cleric.....
In fact, I like how I can take a dozen different approaches to the archer: I can make a straight fighter archer. I can use the fighter with the archer archetype. I can use a rogue (ideally with the sniper AT). The ranger with the archery combat style. Cleric of Erastil works, too. And bard. Zen archer monk. And so on.
They can all shoot bows, but their other abilities are quite different.
With prestige classes they're virtually never class-based restrictions. Meet the qualifications, you can get the training. Period. You don't need to bloat the system with a rogue archer and a fighter archer and a ranger archer and a barbarian archer, etc.
So you say there should only be one way to be an archer? That goes directly against the class concept Pathfinder uses. More options = more fun!
But that's the crux of it. I never said at the same time. I said never ever. No matter WHAT that character does, he can never ever train as both.
What.
Yes, someone who has blended their training will be less experienced, but what possible reason is there to say someone cannot possibly train in both?
Well, you cannot be both an enchanter and an evoker, either.
You could, of course, just get some evocation spells. Or multiclass as sorcerer. And the archer (with the archery AT) who also wants to use crossbows could just become ranger with the crossbow style, or just use some crossbow feats.
One of the great tropes of fantasy is the master of many disciplines, and implementing them this way makes such a concept flat out impossible.
Now that I read that, I must actively, and strongly oppose prestige classes, because they're a slippery slope. Today PrCs for the master of many disciplines, tomorrow demands for a class with a d12 for HD, full BAB, all weapon and armour proficiencies, 8+ skill points, and full, 9th-level spellcasting (with both arcane and divine magic).
Pathfinder doesn't do one-man adventuring parties. If you want to do many things at once, you cannot specialise - not to the extent where you'd be a "master".
So in this case, you ignore archetypes. You stick with fighter. Or ranger. Lot of crossover for the two things, anyway.
I wouldn't mind a book collecting all of the Golarion specific PrC's and archtypes into one place instead of spread out in all the existing companions and adventure paths. (most of this is missing from the PRD sadly)
Deffinetly nothing like a new collection of them.
Look at the Archives of Nethys, or the d20pfsrd page.
Anyway, if they want to do a compilation, it better not be on any subscription. I'd hate to need to pay twice for this. I already bought all the chronicles and companions and APs and so on, make me pay twice for the whole stuff? Just for a compilation?
Not worth it really.