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.
And why is that? I think it's because PrCs are pretty much dead and buried, at least as stocking stuffer.
And in 2e, I'd bet the farm (if I had one) that they'll be cone for good.
Feat chains make a lot more sense.
What we need is the Genius Guide to Prestige Feat Chains!
How about a PrC, or even an Archetype, that focuses on shooting things independent if it is bow, crossbow, sling or thrown weapon?
That is called "the fighter class". Or "the ranger class".
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.
That, and that PrCs are dead and buried.
No PrCs in UM. No Genius Guides to PrCs, no nothing.
PrCs have been demoted to the position they were supposed to fill all along: tying characters to the setting. And even that has been partially taken over by archetypes.
|
I like Archetypes. I think they are an interesting and needed addition to the 3.5 rules set. I do think that they are, in some sense, just an alternative way of presenting Substitution Levels -- they could easily be presented the same way as the Substitution Levels were in WOTC 3.5 -- but they serve a needed purpose.
I don't see how they can possibly seen as a replacement for Prestige Classes however, as Prestige Classes serve an equally valuable but very different function and are very effective for achieving certain types of goals.
Archetypes are for characters who had an alternative training regime to the standard presentation of the class, and thus develop a slightly different skill set moving forward in their career.
Prestige Classes allow a player to change the direction his character is going after the game has started, possibly in reaction to unforeseen events and developments in the campaign.
I think having arguments of Archetypes Vs Prestige Classes is silly, because they serve radically different agendas. It's akin to arguing Cars vs Sofas. It just makes me scratch my head.
One of my all-time favorite Prestige Classes is the Kingpin from Penumbra's Crime And Punishment book. The Kingpin is a rogue PrC that represents a thief who has more or less abandoned his thief training, forgoing that for developing his management skills and building a criminal empire. It's an excellent PrC for the rogue who has started his own guild and wants to focus on that, rather than focus on getting better at stabbing people in the kidneys.
You can't do the Kingpin as an archetype. It would require a player to decide he's going to play a crime lord at 1st level, and then lock him into that choice for the rest of his career. But what if the player doesn't get interested in such an option until his character is around 9th level? Or what if he gets to 9th level and decides he would actually rather focus on kidney stabbing? The archetype system simply doesn't work for these kinds of options.
Likewise, I can easily see a place for similar, non-rogue, generic, non-setting specific PrCs like "General." A PrC that allows a fighter to abandon his weapon training in favor of developing his strategic and logistical skills to lead an army (and not from the front, but from a command post far behind the front lines). In fact, every single one of the leadership roles presented in the Kingdom Building rules from Kingmaker (or Book of the River Nations) could be turned into a generic prestige class - Ruler, Councilor, General, Grand Diplomat, High Priest, Magister, Marshal, Royal Assassin (okay, that one is probably already covered), Spymaster, Treasurer (I'll admit this one sounds wicked boring) and Warden.
And interestingly enough, despite 782 WOTC PrCs, only the Spymaster is a PrC -- and while my copy of Complete Adventurer is in storage right now, I'm pretty sure the Spymaster PrC is focused on a really badass spy, not the head of a ring of spies.
I would definitely like to see a PFRPG book focused on prestige classes. What I don't want to see is the sort of twinkie PrCs that made WOTC PrCs so obnoxious, the sort that lead to people talking about "dipping" and all those other noisome powergaming tropes. PrCs that represent real, fundamental changes in the direction of a PCs career are certainly welcome however, and I think they really do enhance the game (for certain playstyles at least).
So I would welcome a PrC book if it was written for role-players, and not for power-gamers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how feasible an entire book of just prestige classes would be. On the other hand, I do like more options for a character, and prestige classes do fill a niche that archtypes do not. So I'm not against them, and wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
And to be honest I get a bit sick of people who, hopefully not intentionally, come across as saying "I don't like Firearms/Ninjas/Samurai/Prestige Classes/XXXX therefore there should never ever be anything about them published by whatever company is being discussed". Different strokes for different folks. I'd be happier if people just stuck to saying that they do or don't like something and explaining why. Not that I expect that to ever happen.
My two cents on both the original issue and the subsequent arguments.
|
|
I'm not sure how feasible an entire book of just prestige classes would be.
I think something between the size of a Player Companion and a Chronicles supplement would make a lot more sense than an actual hardcover RPG book.
It might be something more appropriate for a 3PP, but it'd be nice if there was something official.
And why is that? I think it's because PrCs are pretty much dead and buried, at least as stocking stuffer.
And the world is a better place for it :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And why is that? I think it's because PrCs are pretty much dead and buried, at least as stocking stuffer.And the world is a better place for it :)
I gotta say, for folks who are supposedly so indifferent to prestige classes, you're spending a heck of a lot of time telling me how wrong I am :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was curious and interested to see if the return of PrC's (or the conversation around it) would take them in a different direction than the pile of junk foist upon us as part of 3rd ed. I was pleased with the new options presented that retained the core class and just added what we called 'kits' back in 2nd Ed.
As rightly stated above, the character good with all ranged weapons can comfortably be covered by a Ranger or Fighter, so why invent a whole new PrC for that?
PrC's CAN be used to add depth to a Campaign setting, but then all of a sudden people want to play that campaign specific PrC in all sorts of situations that they simply don't fit in - creating a load of headaches.
PrC's in specific settings, to be used ONLY in those settings, fine.
PrC's for every trope/manga/latest-'cool movie hero' - no thanks.
|
I'm not sure how feasible an entire book of just prestige classes would be.I think something between the size of a Player Companion and a Chronicles supplement would make a lot more sense than an actual hardcover RPG book.
It might be something more appropriate for a 3PP, but it'd be nice if there was something official.
That size isn't possible. because of the type of binding they use, the page count has to be divisible by 16
I removed a couple posts. Keep things PG-13.
And why is that? I think it's because PrCs are pretty much dead and buried, at least as stocking stuffer.And the world is a better place for it :)
Amen.
No PrCs in UM. No Genius Guides to PrCs, no nothing.They do have one product, Genius Guide to the Order of Vigilance. It presents three PrCs: Dauntless Shield, Unseen Hand, and Warding Eye.
One product. From the company that does one product each week.
Sounds more like a one-off, a testing of waters (and finding them wanting), than anything else.
Again, not boding well for PrCs.
For those of you so vehemently opposed to prestige classes, have you ever used one of the following in your setting:
- Archmage
- Assassin
- Dragon Disciple
- Duelist
- Eldritch Knight
- Holy Vindicator
- Loremaster
- Shadowdancer
Really, these are some of the coolest classes around, and they are prestige. You're not going to be able to play one very effectively if you're restricting yourself to base classes and archetypes.
I think having arguments of Archetypes Vs Prestige Classes is silly, because they serve radically different agendas. It's akin to arguing Cars vs Sofas. It just makes me scratch my head.
+1
|
For those of you so vehemently opposed to prestige classes, have you ever used one of the following in your setting:
- Archmage
- Assassin
- Dragon Disciple
- Duelist
- Eldritch Knight
- Holy Vindicator
- Loremaster
- ShadowdancerReally, these are some of the coolest classes around, and they are prestige. You're not going to be able to play one very effectively if you're restricting yourself to base classes and archetypes.
The problem isn't that prestige classes exist, the problem is that they should be kept to a reasonable level. A few fairly generic ones (covered in the Core Rules and APG) and any others should be STRONGLY tied to the setting. And really, you're gonna use the archmage to defend PrCs? It's pretty common consensus that that's one of the most redundant, moronic, and pointless prestige classes in all of 3.X.
|
|
That size isn't possible. because of the type of binding they use, the page count has to be divisible by 16I'm not sure how feasible an entire book of just prestige classes would be.I think something between the size of a Player Companion and a Chronicles supplement would make a lot more sense than an actual hardcover RPG book.
It might be something more appropriate for a 3PP, but it'd be nice if there was something official.
I was going to make a snarky comment about paizo not being able to publish books the size of the books they currently publish, but I realize I could have been more clear. So let be more clear:
I think something the size of a Player Companion or a Chronicles supplement would make a lot more sense than something the size of the Advanced Player's Guide.
For those of you so vehemently opposed to prestige classes, have you ever used one of the following in your setting:
An Assassin NPC, and a Dragon Disciple.
The rest have all been spoken about over time, but no one took one, the reason being was that there wasn't any huge benefit to the player over sticking to their core class.
I believe the strength of the VERY LIMITED pool of PrC's that are represented is that they aren't the PrC's of old where they became a 'must have', and are actually really well balanced. Wasn't the case in 3.5, and wont be the case if they are once again allowed out of the tightly lidded box.
Removed a post (and its replies). Please be civil to each other.
For those of you so vehemently opposed to prestige classes
I'm so vehemently opposed to a book of PrCs. Can I still mock the examples you give? :P
- Archmage
- Assassin
- Dragon Disciple
- Duelist
- Eldritch Knight
- Holy Vindicator
- Loremaster
- Shadowdancer
Let's see:
Can be a level 5 wizard. It's a title.
The class might have been alright in 3e, where there was no reason to stick to the wizard class, but that's a thing of the past. Some of the abilities you could choose just don't belong in the game, and the others have been turned into feats for the most part.
This one isn't even a title. It's a job description. It's someone who does "work" (i.e. being paid to murder people). Rogues can do it just fine, and so can - well, every other class except maybe paladins.
The Red Mantis Assassin, on the other hand - that's prestige. It's not just any hired killer. It's a member of the infamous Red Mantis!
The thing is, the way Pathfinder treats PrCs now is the proper way: They had some generic ones in the Core Rulebook and APG (maybe a few too much, but I can live with that), mostly for stuff they probably don't want to make a whole base class for right now, or stuff that might not work too well with archetypes. Or, frankly, just stuff they felt they had to repeat because it was in the 3e core rules.
Beyond that, they have proper Prestige classes (with a capital P) in the Golarion books. Stuff like Hellknights, Red Mantis Assassins, Pathfinder Savants and the like.
A book full of generic PrCs would not make sense. What's it going to be? 100 variations on the theme "Wayfarers, Thief-Acrobats and Tempests"?
he thing is, the way Pathfinder treats PrCs now is the proper way: They had some generic ones in the Core Rulebook and APG (maybe a few too much, but I can live with that), mostly for stuff they probably don't want to make a whole base class for right now, or stuff that might not work too well with archetypes. Or, frankly, just stuff they felt they had to repeat because it was in the 3e core rules.
Beyond that, they have proper Prestige classes (with a capital P) in the Golarion books. Stuff like Hellknights, Red Mantis Assassins, Pathfinder Savants and the like.
A book full of generic PrCs would not make sense. What's it going to be? 100 variations on the theme "Wayfarers, Thief-Acrobats and Tempests"?
I'm with you 100% here - gratuitous prestige classes just to fill in that part of the checklist for a splat book is definitely not the way to go.
In fact, I'm thinking that many of the archetypes fall in the same category. We don't need an archer archetype, I don't think, any more than we need an archer prestige class.
I know what's been bugging me - I think that the way 3.5e did that was the right way - rather than "selecting an archetype", you could swap out individual class features. Kind of like feats, but different.
THAT is what I wish Pathfinder had done. I see what they did - they grouped alternate class features into packages, but there is no option to select them piecemeal - you have to take the whole enchilada.