| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah one of the major things I miss from 3.5 is the "Complete" series.
I think archetypes suck actually, because all of them takes away class features from the core class. Prestige classes just adds stuff, so it's better.
I agree wwith the op, but it would have to be really good prestige classes.
|
They both do the same thing: swap out stuff from base class. Except that PrCs begin giving you the good stuff at level 6 at earliest, force you into specific builds for prerequisites and aren't nearly as universal as some think (if you're playing a sneak attack class you want a sneak attack PrC), and if you take them at any later level than 6, you're actually shooting yourself in the foot, since their class abilities were designed to match base classes at equivalent levels.
The only reason for their insane proliferation during the 3.5 era was that the core 3.5 classes were dull, devoid of options and full of dead levels. WotC decided to fix that by printing a zillion of PrCs, most of which were no-brainers for anybody with half a working brain cell (Frenzied Berserker! Abjurant Cheesecake! Ur-Priest!).
Paizo keeps PrCs to what they were actually intended to, meaning representation of membership in some groups (Hellknight, RMA) or some very specific, focused path (eg. the multiclass combo PrCs such as Battle Herald). But they're no longer a font for class variety, archetypes cover that.
archetypes cover that.
Like the archmage? :)
Archmage abilities were broken down into feats in APG.archetypes cover that.Like the archmage? :)
Like spell power, master of elements and master of shaping?
Seriously?Spell power doesn't exists anymore, master of elements and master of shaping now are two crappy feats.
"Personalizable" prestige classes like the archmage, or the hierophant, with only five levels with class abilities that a player can choose weren't that bad, imho.
Archetypes and prestige classes fill two different niches, both of which are important.
Saying prestige classes are unnecessary because we have archetypes is like saying feats are unnecessary because we have class abilities.
Both are important. 3.5e went crazy with prestige classes and experimented (late in the game) with the equivalent of archetypes. Pathfinder has gone crazy with archetypes (there's hundreds of 'em) but has gone light on prestige classes.
The pendulum always swings.
|
|
Yeah one of the major things I miss from 3.5 is the "Complete" series.I agree 150%! I luv PRC's The ability to play a truly unique PC. To stand out from the cookie cutters. I admit it takes time and effort to build but I remember my PRC characters, my base class archetypes.... Yawn???
I hope you are aware that the most abusive cookie cutter 3.5 builds were created by stacking PrCs that were never meant to be stacked. Ever heard of Pun-Pun?
|
I hope you are aware that the most abusive cookie cutter 3.5 builds were created by stacking PrCs that were never meant to be stacked. Ever heard of Pun-Pun?Yeah one of the major things I miss from 3.5 is the "Complete" series.I agree 150%! I luv PRC's The ability to play a truly unique PC. To stand out from the cookie cutters. I admit it takes time and effort to build but I remember my PRC characters, my base class archetypes.... Yawn???
I understand Gorbacz that you and I disagree on Archetypes and PRC's we have in a few threads. Pun Pun was never designed to be played as said by the creator of Pun Pun it was a theoretical piece of work.
I don;t consider PRC and their build to be cookie cutters
Cookie Cutter as defined by urban dictionary
- Marked by sameness and a lack of originality; mass-produced.
PRC are so varied and different from the original classes as to be opposite of your statement (PRC break away from the class to create a different character). Now archetype are exactly your statement... Same class with minor changes.
Bur enough of that... I love archetypes and PRC together... they provide very colorful characters so you can truly get some unique builds.
But I been on board long enough to know no one can change another opinion so Lets just say. Were both very happy with the way PF has went as my group allows 3.5 PRC's so I enjoy PRC's and Archetypes. Happy posting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF is trying to stop making rules/classes/etc. Well you might see some pop up in books, but as far as a crunch related book, Ultimate Magic was supposed to be the last one that had player things in them.
The Archmage question was asked for before PF was even finalized, and afterwards. Paizo has said they will not do it.
PS:I see a lot of what I was going to say has been post by Gorbacz. I can stop typing now.
|
|
New from Paizo... Pathfinder Player Companion: Pirates of the Inner Sea (PFRPG)
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Inside this book, you’ll find:
New pirate archetypes for several different classes, including the buccaneer bard, the freebooter fighter, the corsair ranger, and the smuggler rogue.
The Inner Sea pirate prestige class.
Yep... PRC lol
Yeah one of the major things I miss from 3.5 is the "Complete" series.
They looked interesting, but as a potential DM the financial cost and the prospect of having to learn all the associated rules was very off-putting.
I think archetypes suck actually, because all of them takes away class features from the core class. Prestige classes just adds stuff, so it's better.
I agree wwith the op, but it would have to be really good prestige classes.
Archetypes mostly replace stuff in the core class with different stuff. Prestige classes replaced entire levels with ones with different stuff. Main difference? One starts later, pre-selects some choices for you, and nine times out of ten throws your base attack and saving throw progressions out of sync.
Some Archetypes are unbalanced. Some prestige classes are unbalanced.
They are mostly intended to serve the same purpose- make you different from the "norm." Archetypes are a bit simpler and integrate more cleanly as far as mechanics go (and mechanics are all that the two vehicles truly affect- you can be a Red Wizard of Thay without having a single level in the PrC).
Personally, I prefer Archetypes. I don't believe that you can just add stuff to a class because a designer made some character choices for you. (Even if they were "sub-optimal/balanced/choices you would have made anyway")
|
|
I think archetypes suck actually, because all of them takes away class features from the core class. Prestige classes just adds stuff, so it's better.
I agree wwith the op, but it would have to be really good prestige classes.
Archetypes mostly replace stuff in the core class with different stuff. Prestige classes replaced entire levels with ones with different stuff. Main difference? One starts later, pre-selects some choices for you, and nine times out of ten throws your base attack and saving throw progressions out of sync.
Some Archetypes are unbalanced. Some prestige classes are unbalanced.
They are mostly intended to serve the same purpose- make you different from the "norm." Archetypes are a bit simpler and integrate more cleanly as far as mechanics go (and mechanics are all that the two vehicles truly affect- you can be a Red Wizard of Thay without having a single level in the PrC).
** spoiler omitted **
Is their a feat or another class that allows Circle magic?
- Thats what made playing the PRC so cool... take leadership get your circle and have them sacrifice spell levels to offset your spell level adjust metamagics.***Specifics: Allows caster to participate in Circle Magic. Caster sacrifices a spell to augment the casting power of the Circle Leader.
The closest thing to Circle Magic I can recall are Allied Spellcaster teamwork feat a Witch's Coven hex. Still, I would like to see rules for magical rituals allowing for more extended/group casting (adds notes in his to-do list).
Is their a feat or another class that allows Circle magic?
- Thats what made playing the PRC so cool... take leadership get your circle and have them sacrifice spell levels to offset your spell level adjust metamagics.
***Specifics: Allows caster to participate in Circle Magic. Caster sacrifices a spell to augment the casting power of the Circle Leader.
Is there an extremely compelling reason that it shouldn't have been a feat with the prerequisite: "Must be taught by a spellcaster capable of Circle Magic" instead of using a class to define membership of a purely in-game organization?
I was just chucking out an example off-the-cuff. Substitute "Red Wizard" with Purple Dragon Knight, Knight Hospitaller, or even American Boy Scout to suit your taste.
It could go a long way to injecting variety into an organization if you don't create a class for it. Adding a prestige class for an organization mentally short-circuits large swathes of the gaming community into thinking every last member of it has levels in said class, and defines their abilities more than you think. If membership in an organization is dependent on a mechanical ability, finding another vehicle for it besides full-on Class Levels allows for a lot more originality on the mechanical end.
Example: Masters of the Unseen Hand, Dirgesingers, Blood Mages and more, all in a dangerous villian guild known for a unique variety of Circle Magic they guard, linked by national identity and mutual benefit? Yes please. Mechanics-Wise? Not feasible in a practical sense if they are juggling prerequisites and progressions of three classes to do it (a base class, their "sthick" PrC, and their organization's PrC). At the very least, they all end up being restricted to late-game villains (as the members need enough levels to qualify for everything that defines them), they require prohibitive amounts of planning to use more than a handful, and their saves and Base Attack are going to be excessively screwy as a side effect when it doesn't have to be.
If a prestige class is actually just a definition of the character interest and contains suitably different selections from a base class, that's great, but doesn't explain why those interests could only be pursued later, after a few unrelated decisions are already made (Archetypes are the same and start right away). If the Prestige Class defines a member of an organization, you have the above problem. I'm not thinking of a prestige class that didn't fit into one of those two definitions other than perhaps "template in disguise" classes like the one that turned you into a spider-critter or walking Adamantine statue. If you can, I'm interested in seeing it. Perhaps it's a legitimate use that will change my mind.
I like the idea with Bloat Mages - you take the feat to represent their unique approach to magic. If you want you may develop your mastery of bloat magic by taking the PrC but it is extension of bloat magic and not obligatory requirement to be considered it's practitioner.
I was never really a PrC fiend in 3.5, probably only had 2 characters that ever took a prestige class. On the other hand, except for my first 2 PF characters, since the APG was released, none of my characters were plain core classes, all were archetypes. I much prefer archetypes to prestige classes. (I much prefer archetypes to base/core classes without archetypes.)
For exotic races like Tengu, Rite Publishing has racial paragon classes which are the epitome of a given race made into a 20 level full class. Which is a concept I really like.
All the In the Company of... series from Rite Publishing includes new archetypes specific for the given race the book is based.
Now with the first Way of... series for Kaidan (Rite Publishing) there are five archetypes for four classes, and one Prestige class for Way of the Yakuza. In the upcoming Way of the Samurai, there will be a half dozen archetypes and 2 prestige classes. The same treatment will be given to Way of the Shinobi (as well as one more book on mostly evil NPCs of the Shogunate)
So lots of archetypes, one racial paragon class per PC monster, and a few prestige classes are being created by Rite Publishing.
The point of all this is, if Paizo is not creating the content you want, you could always look at 3pp - Rite Publishing, Super Genius Games, etc.