Is there any products that have prestige classes other than the CORE RULEBOOK and ADVANCED PLAYER'S GUIDE?
I would really like to see some more of them. A few of my old favorites that come to mind are the BATTLERAGER and BLADEDANCER from 3.5.
Both Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic have Prestige Classes, also to be found in the PRD.
This link is pretty complete, concerning other sources.
http://nethys.karuikage.net/classesPrestige.htm
|
Both Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic have Prestige Classes, also to be found in the PRD.
This link is pretty complete, concerning other sources.
http://nethys.karuikage.net/classesPrestige.htm
Actually, neither Ultimate Magic nor Ultimate Combat don't have any PrCs.
For all practical reasons, Archetypes are the new Prestige Classes.
Darn. Archetypes. Thanks for the correction.
The d20pfsrd has them all: Prestige Classes.
Thanks for the links. :D
I like the Archetypes because they add new flavor to the various classes. However, I like prestige classes because they add entirely new abilities and tactics to a character. For example, I will never forget my Druid/Assassin. It actually worked out really well, becoming one of my favorite characters I have ever played.
I do understand the lack of prestige classes, or the downplay of them that Paizo has done. 3.5 made the basic classes obsolete with the massive bonuses granted from prestige classes, as well as the abilities granted from the prestige classes outperforming many, if not all, of the abilities from the core classes. Add to that the massive number of prestige classes from 3.5 and it became a quick problem.
I would like to see maybe one or two prestige classes in each major book, simply because the new ideas and classes help keep the game fresh. But keep the archetypes coming, I like my two-handed ranger!
They do, but they are generally in line with the basic concept of that class. A Druid 10/Assassin 10 that cannot be flanked, has Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Angel of Death (causing an enemy's body to crumble into dust) doesn't quite fit the mold of nature's servant. To me, the adding of abilities that don't fit the mold are interesting.
I like the Archetypes because they add new flavor to the various classes. However, I like prestige classes because they add entirely new abilities and tactics to a character. For example, I will never forget my Druid/Assassin.
Well, you could have had pretty much the same effect with a druid/rogue multiclass character.
In PF, prestige classes are (mostly) back to the roots they were supposed to have: PrCs are to tie the rules to the setting and serve specialised roles that are unique to certain organisations. The assassin is not a good PrC (yes, that's a low blow at the current PF assassin) since the concept is too generic. In my opinion, the rogue can fill the job of assassin pretty well with the right rogue talents (and if they're not there, just give us the right rogue talents!) and maybe an archetype or two.
A good PrC, on the other hand, is the Red Mantis Assassin. That's not just any guy/gal who kills for money, it's a member of the dreaded Red Mantis, an infamous assassin's guild worshipping He Who Walks In Blood and having its base of operations in the jungles of Mediogalti Island. They're known for their promise that when they kill someone, he stays killed as well as their fighting style, which resembles the mantis with the twin swords (their signature weapons, sawtooth sabres) and their hypnotic trance attacks.
So in Pathfinder, PrCs are usually found in Pathfinder Campaign Setting books, since they usually don't put setting-specific stuff in their PFRPG line of books.
As for battleragers: Just go barbarian with rage powers and/or archetypes you think fit. Blade dancers (or was that battle dancers? Or Blade singers? How many different yet similar concepts combining performing arts and swords are there, anyway?) are probably bards or magi with the right choices.
Blade Singer.
No, I went back and looked. The OP said bladedancer. Which is not the same as the bladesinger.
They're from an elven kit back in 2e, as far as I know. And the magus is the perfect rendition of a blade singer (only thing missing is the elven requirement).
There were three different Bladesinger PrCs in 3e times. Plus the blade dancer. And there was a spell singer. It can get confusing.
But you're right: The magus is perfect for the bladesinger - and for most gish concepts really.
The elven only thing can easily be a form of specialisation. "Elven magi often call themselves bladesinger. They tend to go for grace and speed rather than brute force and incorporate singing (and dancing) into their already mixed arts."
I also made a bladesinger archetype (the short version is you give up medium and heavy armour for a weakened version of the gunslinger's nimble ability and get to take versatile performance as magus arcana.
That said, I agree with KaeYoss
That is always wise! :)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
They do, but they are generally in line with the basic concept of that class. A Druid 10/Assassin 10 that cannot be flanked, has Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Angel of Death (causing an enemy's body to crumble into dust) doesn't quite fit the mold of nature's servant. To me, the adding of abilities that don't fit the mold are interesting.
You know, I have a druid who hates animals. Built with an archetype.
Just sayin'.
The Pathfinder Campaign setting has prestige classes. However, those seem to be geared more for 3.5 than for PF. If you notice, they use the save progression from 3.5 as opposed to the save progression that PF uses (Which imo is much better and balanced)
|
|
The Pathfinder Campaign setting has prestige classes. However, those seem to be geared more for 3.5 than for PF. If you notice, they use the save progression from 3.5 as opposed to the save progression that PF uses (Which imo is much better and balanced)
The Campaign Setting was a 3.5 book. It was superseded and replaced by Inner Sea World Guide, which includes the same PrCs done with Pathfinder (minus Shackles Pirate, which was cut for being somewhat useless and Pathfinder Chronicler which is in Core Rulebook, but with added Hellknight).
The "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" book was written before the Pathfinder RPG was created, which is why it uses 3.5 rules. Many of the prestige classes (and other content) in that book were updated to Pathfinder rules when "The Inner Sea World Guide" was released.
I like that Pathfinder doesn't go overboard on the amount of prestige classes, but unfortunately it has instead gone overboard on the amount of archetypes. I believe both have their place, but neither should be overdone. There were far too many PrCs in 3.5, but IMO there's also far too many archetypes in PF now.
Archetypes are somewhat more limiting than PrCs, since they're single-class only (and a large amount of them swap out the same abilities). PrCs are more customizable, since many of them can be taken by members of different classes (even though some paths would be more optimal), and you can choose for yourself at which level to begin taking the class.
|
|
The "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" book was written before the Pathfinder RPG was created, which is why it uses 3.5 rules. Many of the prestige classes (and other content) in that book were updated to Pathfinder rules when "The Inner Sea World Guide" was released.
I like that Pathfinder doesn't go overboard on the amount of prestige classes, but unfortunately it has instead gone overboard on the amount of archetypes. I believe both have their place, but neither should be overdone. There were far too many PrCs in 3.5, but IMO there's also far too many archetypes in PF now.
Archetypes are somewhat more limiting than PrCs, since they're single-class only (and a large amount of them swap out the same abilities). PrCs are more customizable, since many of them can be taken by members of different classes (even though some paths would be more optimal), and you can choose for yourself at which level to begin taking the class.
Most of the paths were less optimal. If a PrC has sneak attack, it's rogue only. If it has rage/smite/fav enemy - ditto for respective classes. If it has casting - casters only. The concept of PrCs being universal is mostly an illusion, and even worse - may lead to death traps as somebody takes shafted combos such as: Sorcerer4/Inquistor 4/Mystic Theurge.
"Choose your level" is a trap as well. PrC abilities are designed and balanced with the baseline assumption of first PrC level taken at 6th character level. Therefore, the later you enter the PrC, the more you lose compared to going straight class. So if you do Fighter 15/PrC 1, your first abilities are balanced against 6th level characters.
The archetype flood is not "too much", it's "catching up" with the cornucopia of hundreds of 3.5 PrCs.
Honestly, the only viability I see for many PrCs comes with the Gestalt rules. Others just suck outright, for whatever reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The archetype flood is not "too much", it's "catching up" with the cornucopia of hundreds of 3.5 PrCs.
I consider more than 200 archetypes in just three books (APG, UM, UC; not including new bloodlines and similar) to be "too much".
And I have no desire to ever see the number of archetypes even come close to "catching up" to the 700 PrCs WotC released for 3.0 and 3.5.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the general thinking regarding archetypes and prestige classes at the office and how you'll likely be seeing them in upcoming campaign setting centered products.
If it's a general concept, a minor variant (especially of a regional or racial tilt), or a specialization, and if it can be conveyed with minor tweaks to class abilities, it's probably an archetype. So your adherents of pervasive elven fighting traditions, your specialized monster hunters, your animal-focused wild warriors, all make fine archetypes. The idea is that your character trained in this specific focus before becoming a character - just like a specialist wizard trains in a specific focus instead of being a univeralist.
If it's a more refined concept, a major reworking of class abilities, or a member of a group with a very different or a highly specialized way of working that's considerably different from the class norm, it's probably a prestige class. So your red mantis assassins, your Hellknights, your Pathfinder chroniclers, your diabolists, all make good prestige classes. Part of this is because these classes should have new systems that set them outside the scope of the relatively minor tinkers archetypes do. We also want these classes to represent training that you've undertaken or worked toward over the course of your adventuring career, representing either a high degree of mastering in a narrow field or membership into an elite group that shares particular training in secrets.
It's okay if an archetype is casual or feels like a cultural twist - I'm a detective, I'm a monster hunter, I'm a dervish. But prestige classes should require a bit more of an investment - I'm a master assassin, I'm an adherent of this special school of magic, I'm the chosen of my faith/culture/race. If you would consider yourself a MASTER X by taking the option, we're probably going to make it a prestige class.
Another part of that is that we'd increasingly like prestige classes to be viewed as rewards. They've have always had hoops you've had to jump through to qualify for them - take this feat, these skills, etc - but in many cases the world flavor is detached. We want to incorporate some of that back in. If one of my players just up and told me after leveling up - and I'm sure many of you feel the same - that he was now, out of the blue, a red mantis assassin, even if he'd met all the prereqs, I'd say "the Hell you are." (I might have less of a problem with the baseline assassin - but that's so generic and now we have new tools through which we might present relatively generic ideas like this.) On the contrary, if from the get go one of my players decides they want to be a Hellknight, as a GM I want to know so we can start working that into the plot of the game, that way, when it gets to be about the time he's ready to get into that class, the game can make something of a big deal out of it and the pay off - the prestige class - is something a bit more special.
This prestige classes as campaign rewards idea is optional, of course, and if you want to let your players adopt any class they qualify for, by all means do so, but this is the thinking many of our new PrCs in Golarion are being generated under (you can see a lot of this in Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Magic). There will always be exceptions, of course - some ideas are just to elaborate to do with archetypes - so don't feel like every new prestige class will have "Membership in obscure cabal" as a prerequisite going forward. But the more we can put the prestige back in prestige class, and the more we can use archetypes to get players playing the characters they want (and not waiting until 5th or 6th level to really start playing the character they want to) the better!
(Sorry for the info dump - this caught me first thing in the morning. Now where's my coffee...)
Here's the general thinking regarding archetypes and prestige classes at the office and how you'll likely be seeing them in upcoming campaign setting centered products.
If it's a general concept, a minor variant (especially of a regional or racial tilt), or a specialization, and if it can be conveyed with minor tweaks to class abilities, it's probably an archetype.
Okay.
If it's a more refined concept, a major reworking of class abilities, or a member of a group with a very different or a highly specialized way of working that's considerably different from the class norm, it's probably a prestige class.
I agree with how you guys define the two concepts, but shouldn't stuff like the Assassin and Shadowdancer be better off as an archetype by these definitions? It's basically just variants of the rogue. I understand that you guys hadn't created archetypes at this point in development, but do you think you'll ever revisit some of the prestige classes that don't really meet the requirements and maybe even revamp them into archetypes?
I agree with how you guys define the two concepts, but shouldn't stuff like the Assassin and Shadowdancer be better off as an archetype by these definitions? It's basically just variants of the rogue. I understand that you guys hadn't created archetypes at this point in development, but do you think you'll ever revisit some of the prestige classes that don't really meet the requirements and maybe even revamp them into archetypes?
I think there's definitely a strong argument for the idea that assassins and shadowdancers could be archetypes. I think there's an equally strong argument for assassins and shadowdancers staying prestige classes, too. The distinction between prestige class and archetype definitely can get a bit fuzzier when campaign elements aren't there to weigh in and a class could conceivably be boiled down to a few key features. At this point, though, I don't see the idea of reinventing either of these prestige classes as archetypes gaining much traction in our products. Revising and countermanding concepts that by the rules aren't technically wrong to suit our tastes of the moment just doesn't seem to be in our own or our players' best interest.
That said, I think this could be interesting ground for another publisher who's taken with archetypes and down on prestige classes to explore.
I also made a bladesinger archetype (the short version is you give up medium and heavy armour for a weakened version of the gunslinger's nimble ability and get to take versatile performance as magus arcana.
Would you consider posting this archetype? That sounds almost exactly like something I would very much like to see.
Would you consider posting this archetype?
I'll definitely consider it. I just don't know whether I'll actually do it.
Well, okay.
Bladesinger (Magus Archetype)
Magi combine the martial with the magic. Bladesingers take it further and add performance to the mix. Originally developed by the elves, this aesthetic style has spread to other races.
Bladebond: Bladesingers have to use a light or one-handed bladed weapon (from the light blade or heavy blade fighter weapon groups) for any magus/bladesinger class ability that involves weapon attacks, like spell combat and spellstrike. Furthermore any feats gained using magus bonus feats or the fighter training ability must apply to such weapons.
Performer:Bladesingers gain Perform as a class skill
Versatile Performance: A bladesinger can get versatile performance in place of a magus arcana.
Nimble:At 7th-level, the bladesinger gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC while wearing light armour or no armour. This bonus increases by +1 for every 6 levels beyond 7 (to a maximum of +3 at 19th-level). This replaces medium armour and heavy armour.
The bladebond thing could be considered optional.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Said a lot of interesting stuff about Archetypes and Prestige Classes.
I don't think you (or most of the Paizo boys and girls) are getting what this thread is really about, Mr. Schneider. This thread, and many of the complaints that you're hearing to begin to pop up around the forums, are about the general lack of Prestige Classes in Pathfinder. It really disappointed me when I cracked open the "Ultimate" guides to magic and combat, the books that were supposed to be the "end-all resource for options on magic and combat" and not one Prestige Class was found within them. And to be honest, I think I know why, and it worries me.
From my perspective (as I'm sure is the perspective of many other people who feel the way I do), it really looks like Paizo as a company is worried about reintroducing (or reigniting feelings of) Prestige Class bloat. This was a real problem in 3.5; where you'd have so many Prestige Class abilities that interacted in so many different ways that it was possible to create many broken combinations. In some cases the classes were too good. In others they were terrible. This isn't something that I have to explain to you guys over in Washington; you've all lived through it alongside of us. However, it appears to be an issue that Paizo has taken a very one-sided opinion on, and their certainly is an issue because there are plenty of us who want to see a respectable number of Prestige Classes in Pathfinder. Not in Golarion. In Pathfinder.
One of the biggest problems I have with Pathfinder right now is the heavy division between "Golarion" content and Core content. It's one thing if you have a feat or two that are unique to Golarion. Maybe some special magic items and weapons. Maybe some monsters. That's all fine. Mostly because with magic items and monsters, there are rules in place in the game that teaches a suave GM just how to make those things; the Bestiary has extensive rules on designnig monsters, the Core Rulebook has modest rules for designing magic items, and I'm sure that the upcoming Ultimate Equipment book will have even more. There's no current way to balance homegrown feats, but there are enough feats in the game that it's not hard to place options next to each other to see how they stack, and many (but not all) of the feats that are introduced to Golarion end up in a Core product of some kind. The same cannot be said for Prestige Classes, however.
There seems to be this big movement within Paizo that a Prestige Class needs to be connected to the World in order to be a good Prestige Class. That's a fine stance to take, but the problem is that you're only supporting ONE world when you take this stance; Golarion. For all of us out there who use our own worlds or play in older worlds, slowly updating them to Pathfinder, we have NOTHING but that dozen or so Prestige Classes that was introduced between Core and the Advanced Player's Guide (The Core Book even breaks this rule on Prestige Classes with the introduction of the Pathfinder prestige class!).
So is my world, which may not have a place for the Chelixian Hellknights supposed to make way so I can actually afford to give my players interesting options for Prestige Classes? After all, for every person who hates Prestige Classes and wants to never see another one ever again, there are those of us who love them for the customization they bring to a Roleplaying Game. Some people are going to say, "Oh, well just alter the Golarion classes to fit your world!" Well, I don't feel like I should have to go through and neuter a piece of Golarion's rich world history in order to make a Prestige Class for my own world that will just marginally fit in; especially when the class doesn't fit in my world in the first place. "Oh, well then make your own!" There isn't a guide to building Prestige Classes currently; even the GameMastery Guide skips over the finer aspects on how to homebrew, and there's nothing planned (that we know of) that would work like the Advanced Race's Guide 's race building guide. So, is the ultimate answer for me to entirely ignore a rich (if over done) piece of 3.5's Heritage? That seems to be Paizo's stance.
Looking over the Core Rulebook, there are a LOT of old, near obsolete ideas that Pathfinder kept. Half of the Monk's class abilities. The idea that a Sorcerer/Oracle should get spells later because they have have a higher number of Spells per Day than a Wizard/Cleric (not entirely true, especially with newer builds). The Eschew Materials feat. The "ageless" trait, when there is only one aging effect spell in the game (Sands of Time). All of these things have been kept in the game for legacy's sake, but we're going to throw away one of the most iconic ideas to be born from and expanded upon in 3rd Edition? Yes, Wizards did too many of them. Yes, some of them are overpowered. But does that really man that Prestige Classes need to be so regularly moderated? As in "They're for Golarion only, neener neener neener!" If so, I'm disappointed by that. Paizo as a company never struck me as a group of designers that ever strayed from a challenge. You saved an entire game system from dying and fading away the way its earlier editions did. You fixed the rules and made them easier to learn and more fun to play. You not once, not twice, but three times expanded upon your rules, creating three excellent player resources without sacrificing quality. You continuously create the best monsters in the game. On that not, you even managed to take the laughing stock of the monster universe and make them into some of the most beloved creatures in the game. And out of everything you've done, taking a good idea from 3.5 and making it better is the place you stop?
Stuff
+1 this.
I would have to agree. Thanks for yanking the words right outta my mouth, lol.
+1 for Golden-Esque.
Pretty much summed up everything I would have said, though I would have had a hard time relaying my message due to how tired I am right now.
So is my world, which may not have a place for the Chelixian Hellknights supposed to make way so I can actually afford to give my players interesting options for Prestige Classes?
I have to ask: Why not tell your players, that 3.5PrC´s are available for them ? If they´re interested, they should come up with a suggestion/conversion/nerfing, which you can approve or change and that´s it ?
I like archetypes because it allows players to customize their characters without having to give up ALL of their class abilities.
Being able to change a few things usually works quite well as opposed to having to meet the prereqs for a PrC, especially in PF, where they push for the 20 level class progression as opposed to mixing 5 classes.
However, I do agree that the books that were about very specific things (Combat and Magic) should have had at least one class to aid players who wanted to specialize in one thing; but players should not dismiss archetypes as a viable way to customize characters
There's only one tiny problem: PrC's don't work.
They're usually trap options for everyone except 1-2 classes that work well with them, which ironically makes them more like archetypes.
This isn't true at all; to be honest, the only Prestige Classes that don't really work are the ones that mix two Spellcasting classes together (i.e. Mystic Theurge). Any Prestige Class that focuses more on weapon combat, however, works fine because Base Attack Bonus stacks from multiple classes. The trick is giving the Prestige Class abilities that make it a viable alternative to the base class abilities.
Also, while a good Prestige Class may work "similarly" to an Archetype, they should be able to realistically function well between multiple classes and builds. For example, you should be able to build a reasonably effective Arcane Trickster regardless of whether you decide to play as a Wizard, a Sorcerer, or play it straight as a Sandman Bard (which you could feasibly do if you really wanted to).
I have to ask: Why not tell your players, that 3.5PrC´s are available for them ? If they´re interested, they should come up with a suggestion/conversion/nerfing, which you can approve or change and that´s it?
You must have the most involved players in the world. None of mine would want to go through the effort of searching for and converting Prestige Classes. Also, it runs into a sticky spot where someone might say, "Well, you're letting Tom use the Kung-Fu Master PrC out of Complete Warrior, why can't I use the Monkey Grip feat?" I've found that it makes life a lot easier not to pick and choose like that.
Also, as a Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder should be able to stand on its own merits and not rely on other products to fill a void in their character options. I should not feel forced to go to a 3PP or Wizards of the Coast to find Prestige Classes.
Just because a class or PrC is labeled "golarian" or some other world,doesn't mean you can't snatch it for your own campaign's use.
This is more true for some Prestige Classes over others. For example, the Shackles Pirate Prestige Class is pretty settings-neutral; none of its classes features are horribly Golarion-esque. However, in my opinion, one of the best examples is the Hellknight, which completely relies on an Order ability, with all the Orders explictedly tied into places in Golarion. Removing or altering all of those places would be a pain in the arse, but more importantly, the entire class's fluff is dependant upon their being a palce like Chelliax in my world. If there's nothing similar, then why would I even bother to "snatch" it up? There are a fairly good number of Prestige Classes like this in the Golarion repertoire.
Being able to change a few things usually works quite well as opposed to having to meet the prereqs for a PrC, especially in PF, where they push for the 20 level class progression as opposed to mixing 5 classes.
A game without choices will quickly cease to be an interesting game. I agree with you that virtually every base class has some sort of amazing benefit for going the full 20 levels (the only classes that really don't, in my personal opinion, are the Barbarian and the Cleric). However, just because the Base Classes all have special abilities that make going the full 20 levels a good idea doesn't mean that we should just throw Prestige Classes out instead. No, it just means that Prestige Classes should have or give abilities that are powerful enough to make a player think, "Wow, which ability do I want more?" That makes a fun game. That makes an interesting choice. Right now, a staggering amount of Prestige Classes aren't interesting choices. As someone else said, they're traps, and that really bothers me.
Personally, I think the biggest thing that could be done to help Prestige Classes out is by streamlining some abilities so they can be advanced by Prestige Classes. Things like Hexes and Revelations should have their powers based off of Caster Level instead of Class Level. If you multiclass into a Prestige Class that advances your Spellcasting as a Witch or Oracle, you're already sacrificing your ability to gain things like bonus spells, Major and Grand Hexes, and access to more powerful Revelations that require a specific Oracle level. As written, both of these classes take huge penalties to multiclassing as compared to Cleric or Wizard, which ends up really hurting the creativity you can do with them.
Basically, I personally think that when you multiclass in general, you should be sacrificing your ability to gain new and more powerful abilities from your other classes; things you've already mastered shouldn't get weaker or fail to progress at all.
|
|
There's only one tiny problem: PrC's don't work.
They're usually trap options for everyone except 1-2 classes that work well with them, which ironically makes them more like archetypes.
This isn't true at all; to be honest, the only Prestige Classes that don't really work are the ones that mix two Spellcasting classes together (i.e. Mystic Theurge). Any Prestige Class that focuses more on weapon combat, however, works fine because Base Attack Bonus stacks from multiple classes. The trick is giving the Prestige Class abilities that make it a viable alternative to the base class abilities.
Also, while a good Prestige Class may work "similarly" to an Archetype, they should be able to realistically function well between multiple classes and builds. For example, you should be able to build a reasonably effective Arcane Trickster regardless of whether you decide to play as a Wizard, a Sorcerer, or play it straight as a Sandman Bard (which you could feasibly do if you really wanted to).
Example: Hellknight.
OK, so it works with full BAB melee classes. Barbarians are out of the picture, because you have to be Lawful. Rangers are also out, since they can't use heavy armor which is a major part of Hellknight (unless you decided to be stupid and blow a feat for proficiency).
So that leaves us with Fighters, Paladins, Cavaliers and Samurai. Neither gets any synergy with Hellknight Abilities, but let's risk to say that the Fighter loses out the least.
So it's a PrC that works best with 1 class, can work OK with 3 others, and that's it.
Of course, there are several universal PrCs (Harrower), but the point stands - they're either good for 1-2 classes (in which case, why not make them an archetype?) or multiclass combo PrCs (which are a good idea that seldom works, Mystic Theurge for example).
Also, my usual points against PrCs still stand: shoehorning character development into prerequisites and having to wait 5 levels before getting anything out of the PrC.
The second argument is doubly strong when you consider that majority of games seldom reach higher levels. It's rather rare to have a character that will actually get anything of the PrC over the course of time - it's less a design problem and more a consequence of how people play the game, but it's something that the designers should have in mind anyway.
Any thoughts on the pathfinder Savant as a Wizard PRC? I'm thinking about making one.
Battle or metal oracles can become hellknights if they wanted to if they pick up the revelation that gives them heavy armor and martail weapon proficiency. Some hellknight abilities are even based on charisma and intimidate is required so you might as well be halfway decent at it.
Ah, I see where the debate between Gorbacz and Golden-esque is going. So I shall pipe up in time to prevent something getting blown out of proportion.
Gorbacz, you're approaching it from an optimization stand point. Golden-esque is going for more the flavor. At least, this is how it reads to me.
And hey, that's fine. To each their own. I personally pick my prestige classes based on the fluff and desires of the character. Then again, I'm also a heavy role player. Not that i completely disregard combat, but our combat PCs always optimize to near broken, so I can get away with not completely optimizing for RAGELANCEPOUNCE or some such. I honestly don't care if I'm getting the most DPR or going the biggest nova. I just wanna enjoy my game damn it....
Example: Hellknight.
OK, so it works with full BAB melee classes. Barbarians are out of the picture, because you have to be Lawful. Rangers are also out, since they can't use heavy armor which is a major part of Hellknight (unless you decided to be stupid and blow a feat for proficiency).
So that leaves us with Fighters, Paladins, Cavaliers and Samurai. Neither gets any synergy with Hellknight Abilities, but let's risk to say that the Fighter loses out the least.
So it's a PrC that works best with 1 class, can work OK with 3 others, and that's it.
Are all Archetypes equal? How about the Paladin archetype where you trade Divine Grace for the ability to speak and read Celestial? Not every option is going to be perfectly optimized for every build, and I agree with Artemis in that you seem to be looking at this from purely a game mechanics optimizing standpoint.
Also, expecting a set of rules to be perfectly awesome for every class is silly. After all, that's what made Prestige Classes rather overpowered in 3.5, correct? That there were so many of them that were so much better than going the full 20 levels in a Core Class that you'd be silly NOT to go for a Prestige Class.
You don't have that problem in Pathfinder. Almost every class has a good incentive for going the full 20 levels, so Prestige Classes end up as what they should be; an option, either to represent an in-game choice made by your character or simply because you want the class's abilities for your build and are willing to build your character's personality around that gameplay goal. This is why the avoidance that is placed on Prestige Classes doesn't make sense; at least, to me it doesn't (and judging by some of the reactions I got, others are inclined to agree with me).
Also, it's a myth that "you are your archetype at level 1." Many archetypes don't give special abilities until much later in your leveling career; for example, the Skirmisher Ranger gives you no benefits until 4th level when you would have normally gained spells per day. That's extremely close to when you could start qualifying for Prestige Classes as well!
Of course, there are several universal PrCs (Harrower), but the point stands - they're either good for 1-2 classes (in which case, why not make them an archetype?) or multiclass combo PrCs (which are a good idea that seldom works, Mystic Theurge for example).
You've already said "why not make them an archetype;" can you imagine what a pain it would be for every ability to say: If you are Class X, this replaces option Y. Prestige Classes, when not tied to a specific order, work best when used to describe a concept that can fall under the wing of several different base classes. For example, while our most traditional assassins are rogues, assassins that work by maximizing expertise with weapons could just as easily fall under the category of fighter, or an assassin who works by infiltrating the courts of nobles could be a Court Jester bard.
This is really what makes Prestige Classes interesting to me; how they interact with other classes. I agree with you that double combo classes rarely work (Mystic Theurge is an excellent example because you lose far too much on both sides for it to be effective unless you're starting out at level 7 or later). Also like Artemis said, the idea to joining an organization or making a major character decision that results in your Prestige Class is a MAJOR incentive for me to go for one. They make for interesting, character-developing stories that cannot be told nearly as well by archetypes.
Also, my usual points against PrCs still stand: shoehorning character development into prerequisites and having to wait 5 levels before...
I don't considering it shoehorning them at all, personally. It's not hard to come up with different motivations for people wanting to join the Hellknights, for example. One person may be a noble, and joining them is a status symbol while another is genuinely concerned with upholding the law and casting down tyranny. Like I said, there are PLENTY of Archetypes were you have to wait before gaining the benefits you want, so it really is a myth that "you are your class at level 1."
One of my favorite uses for the more generic PrCs is to customize intelligent monsters. They can frequently qualify for a PrC with few or no regular class levels, and many of the PrCs that are essentially useless to PCs (due to their requirements, or limited expected useability) can be very interesting to use on certain monsters.
This particular option isn't there to the same degree with archetypes, or with highly organization-specific PrCs. So the market is there for the more generic PrCs even after the advent of archetypes. For the most part, I prefer the organization-specific PrCs for PCs and NPCs.
NPCs can also use PrCs, whether generic or organization-specific, that aren't optimal choices for their class or class combination, since I don't need to worry about their ability to defeat encounters to the degree a PC would need to.
One of my favorite uses for the more generic PrCs is to customize intelligent monsters. They can frequently qualify for a PrC with few or no regular class levels, and many of the PrCs that are essentially useless to PCs (due to their requirements, or limited expected useability) can be very interesting to use on certain monsters.
This particular option isn't there to the same degree with archetypes, or with highly organization-specific PrCs. So the market is there for the more generic PrCs even after the advent of archetypes. For the most part, I prefer the organization-specific PrCs for PCs and NPCs.
NPCs can also use PrCs, whether generic or organization-specific, that aren't optimal choices for their class or class combination, since I don't need to worry about their ability to defeat encounters to the degree a PC would need to.
+1
I, too, sorely miss prestige classes. Sure, lots were broken, but that's life, and part of being a GM is dealing with broken combinations. 3.5e had them, Pathfinder has them, and future Pathfinder rules will *still* have them.
There's stuff you can do with prestige classes that you just can't do with archetypes. If you're a level 10 fighter, you can't take a new fighter archetype if you want to specialize. (A) you can't multiclass fighter/fighter, and (B) you can't apply archetypes after the fact without rebuilding the class (and in some cases you couldn't take them at all if you've already swapped out something an archetype would swap out).
So while I understand where the Paizo design team is coming from, I never have (and still don't) agree with the near-moratorium on prestige classes - I'd really really like to see the archetype/prestige class balance tip just a wee bit the other way (and I agree with Golden-Esque that the tightly focused prestige classes that are married to specific organizations don't fit the bill).
dot
btw, you analysis isn't even complete. If you were the developer, I would now have been able to plan an anti-paladin Hellknight. By using a prestige class for the Hellknight, a certain flexibility has been introduced that allows for an anti-paladin Hellknight.
Huh? Hellknight has a Lawful alignment requirement and the Antipaladin has a Chaotic alignment requirement. I'm pro Prestige Class, but as far as I'm aware, that combo wouldn't work unless you want to lose access to your Antipaladin powers.
So while I understand where the Paizo design team is coming from, I never have (and still don't) agree with the near-moratorium on prestige classes - I'd really really like to see the archetype/prestige class balance tip just a wee bit the other way (and I agree with Golden-Esque that the tightly focused prestige classes that are married to specific organizations don't fit the bill).
The problem is that the scales aren't balanced at all right now. Pathfinder at the moment is the inverse of 3.5's state on options; 3.5 had a ridiculous number of Prestige Classes and one small book of archetypes (the early archetypes were single ability trades, found in the Player's Handbook 2. Paizo's model more closely resemble's 2nd Edition's character kits, but I digress).
I personally don't want to see more Prestige Classes then there are Archetypes. However, the inverse is currently true, and I'd like for there to be a balance. I think some Prestige Classes should be organization-based (the Daggerspell Monastery Prestige Clases were some of my favorite from 3,5), but there should also be more generic ones that can be inserted anywhere.
That said, it's always nice to be reaffirmed that others are thinking the way you are. Thanks! :)
It also seems strangely limiting to me to tie an in game concept to the prestige class. Unless there is some reason there should only be members from a few classes in the organization or that all the organization has to have similar abilities it seems clunky. On the other hand if you have to have a bunch of prestige classes for one organization it seems like there didn't really need to be one in the first place (like for the Pathfinders... how many Pathfinder prestige classes are there...).
So taking the hell knight example, I can see doing a hellknight campaign. There are casters who are part of the hierarchy, there could easily be a cleric of asmodeus rocking around in there, and a ranger type tracking and scouting in front of the main party... but all that wouldn't really be represented by a single prestige class.
I guess to me the idea that prestige class be tied to an in game society or organization doesn't necessarily make all that much sense. I would almost prefer notations on skinning existing character classes, archetypes, and prestige classes into the organization. Would be great in a setting book.
On the flip side, I really enjoy the options that Prestige Classes (and archetypes, they are not mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed) bring to the game... I would LOVE to see more of them.
Sean Mahoney