(For example, was a concept such as "master of whip fighting" REALLY so prevalent that it deserved an entire 10 level PrC? No, but such a thing could easily warrant an Archetype with just a few variant class abilties.)Really want to play "devil's advocate" with this argument:
Okay, so which class gets the "Whip guy" archetype? The Fighter, the Rogue, or the Bard?
And now that you've chosen which one gets it, that means it's unavailable to the other classes that could otherwise make that character (ie: if it's a Bard archetype, then how do you make the Rogue version? The answer - you can't.)
Prestige classing was a way to give an interesting option to anyone who could qualify rather than hog-tying unique roles to specific classes.
And then you have to wait until somewhere around 5th to 7th level to start doing what your character concept is supposed to be all about. Different strokes for different folks; while I understand your position, I see the merit in both methods, and I prefer archetypes even though I lament certain options being limited (like archer fighters being the only archetype to get ranged combat maneuvers [sorry rangers]). It gives me better options at lower levels, which is where most of my games take place.
What we need are more archetypes that cover multiple classes like the Scroll Scholar. It would be harder to pull off, but I think that the reward for that work would be well worth it. It won't replace the prestige class, but it would definitely help alleviate the issue you pointed out.
Here's a wacky idea: why not have a set of non-base classes, non-prestige classes, non-archetypes -- maybe 5 or 10 levels each, depending on how many they need -- that have no requirements or affiliations. They are just highly specialized (but balanced, possibly with calculated weaknesses) around a type of weapon, a specific combat tactic, or what-have-you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... but compare Greyhawk to Eberron (no active gods), or Spelljammer (quasi-sci-fi, spaceships, plus planescape stuff), or Ravenloft (you are utterly powerless to change the world in any way, horror, very small world compared to other settings), or Birthright (barely even a fantasy setting at all)...
*boggle*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(For example, was a concept such as "master of whip fighting" REALLY so prevalent that it deserved an entire 10 level PrC? No, but such a thing could easily warrant an Archetype with just a few variant class abilties.)Really want to play "devil's advocate" with this argument:
Okay, so which class gets the "Whip guy" archetype? The Fighter, the Rogue, or the Bard?
And now that you've chosen which one gets it, that means it's unavailable to the other classes that could otherwise make that character (ie: if it's a Bard archetype, then how do you make the Rogue version? The answer - you can't.)
Prestige classing was a way to give an interesting option to anyone who could qualify rather than hog-tying unique roles to specific classes.
you could just multi class into whichever class gives you the whip archetype with the same amount of levels you would have used to PrC. In my opinion though they should just turn things like this into a string of feats though
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having done that, they've evolved Pathfinder into something what it needs to be... a game that goes beyond the old static boundaries of 3.X.Can you explain exactly how Pathfinder goes beyond the static boundaries of 3.X? With detail and examples?
Because honestly, I completely fail to see what you're getting at.Detail and Examples...
Core Rulebook.... Base classes that didn't suck.
Advanced Players Guide, Archetypes (which are a hell of alot more than 2nd Edition Kits.
Ultimate Magic,
Ultimate Combat,*The utter lack of a new player splatbook every single month*
The admission that a world setting is full of people that are other than heterosexual couples. It's more of a biggie than most people realize.
lol, only to people who care bro. I personally don't either way. Intimate relationships have very little impact on my games and honestly I'm so tired of the nag of this topic that I'm upset its even being mentioned in my escape from reality
Having done that, they've evolved Pathfinder into something what it needs to be... a game that goes beyond the old static boundaries of 3.X.Can you explain exactly how Pathfinder goes beyond the static boundaries of 3.X? With detail and examples?
Because honestly, I completely fail to see what you're getting at.Detail and Examples...
Core Rulebook.... Base classes that didn't suck.
Compared to what exactly?
Advanced Players Guide, Archetypes (which are a hell of alot more than 2nd Edition Kits.
Player's Guide II? (probably one of the best supplements from 3.5), Maybe archetypes are more than kits were (I don't really agree with this, but whatevs) but your claim was that 'boundaries' were broken. Unearthed Arcana has variant classes which do way more and are far better conceived that 90% of archetypes.
Ultimate Magic,
Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, both of which blow ultimate magic away. Also, how is a splat book about magic options breaking 'boundaries' from 3.5?
Ultimate Combat,
Complete Warrior, Book of Nine Swords, both of which blow ultimate combat away. Also, how is splat book about combat options breaking 'boundaries' from 3.5?
*The utter lack of a new player splatbook every single month*
Perhaps you should be aware of this and this not to mention this or this
The admission that a world setting is full of people that are other than heterosexual couples. It's more of a biggie than most people realize.
Ok, good job. You got one.
|
Having done that, they've evolved Pathfinder into something what it needs to be... a game that goes beyond the old static boundaries of 3.X.Can you explain exactly how Pathfinder goes beyond the static boundaries of 3.X? With detail and examples?
Because honestly, I completely fail to see what you're getting at.
Detail and Examples...
Core Rulebook.... Base classes that didn't suck.
Advanced Players Guide, Archetypes (which are a hell of alot more than 2nd Edition Kits.
Ultimate Magic,
Ultimate Combat,
Vs things like the Complete Books? Or D&D's non sucky Base Classes? Nah, half of what Pathfinder did was to make it bad to Multiclass or branch out, which is a little bit different. Alos, Pathfinder didn't invent archtypes, they where in 3E (and 2E if you count Kits). Next?
*The utter lack of a new player splatbook every single month*
Do what? I'm confused. Are you thinking that Paizo doesn't have a new Player focused book monthly, or are you thinking that 3.5 did? Both are wrong. Now, if you mean more along the lines of a hardcover book, that's not player focused, that's a little different a story. Paizo's are softcover and (well at least claim to be) player focused.
The admission that a world setting is full of people that are other than heterosexual couples. It's more of a biggie than most people realize.
I know, if only WotC could hav done that, too. Ow wait, they did. . . So, I guess it's really not that big after all, as the onl one anyone cares about is Paizo, but yep there where gay characters in Homlet, and a few other places.
:)
@BigDTBone i wouldnt consider them boundary breaking either, but i dont think they were ever supposed to be. It seems to me paizo just wanted to mimic a system they loved because it was being scrapped while fixing some of its broken spots. but I would disagree that WotC's "blew them away". Paizo did a good job at what they did, and they even added cool new stuff WotC never offered like magus and gunslinger
When I think of the utility I get from the complete series vs the utility I get from the ultimate series it is not a contest. That's really what I meant by blows them away. How many people do you know who use words of power? How many people do you know who would have used another 40 pages of Prc's, base classes, and ... Idk... Cantrips?
Also, Havoc Mage PrC is very similar to Magus, and the idea of a gish class was hardly original.
I'm not disparaging paizo. I just think many many people around here are wearing rose colored glasses.
|
|
Same here. I think a lot if it is that either people didn't play 3E much and are mostly going off of stuff they hear/see thrown around, forgot a lot of the thing between the two that are different, (like still using 3.5 rules in PF and not realizing they are different), or are much more into the flavor and fluff than the mechanics and rules, and so are more catered to by Paizo's model than they where with WotC's. Nothing wrong with that, and everyone is looking for different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same here. I think a lot if it is that either people didn't play 3E much and are mostly going off of stuff they hear/see thrown around, forgot a lot of the thing between the two that are different, (like still using 3.5 rules in PF and not realizing they are different), or are much more into the flavor and fluff than the mechanics and rules, and so are more catered to by Paizo's model than they where with WotC's. Nothing wrong with that, and everyone is looking for different things.
Bolded my own position :)
I'll unashamedly state that if 3.5 were still being developed I'd likely have never come to Pathfinder in the first place as I was more than happy with 3.5 personally (having been through BECMI and 2e to get to it) I also wouldn't like to be backed into a corner to say which I'd prefer if both were currently actively produced, as I can't say I've even thought about that. Luckily that's not a position I need to envisage myself in. Luckily, I *am* playing Pathfinder now, as I've discovered that I really love the Golarion setting.
I happily drag 3.5 stuff into PF - that's the very reason I switched to PF, as it was a supported system that would also allow me to use most of my existing books with a minimum of effort. Until very recently I was even still using my 3.5 Monster Manual as I was having problems getting hold of the PF Bestary in the UK, and I really do prefer having a physical book for that sort of reference.
EDIT: And I almost forgot - I just bought the Magic Item Compendium premium reprint because it was one of the few missing from my 3.5 collection, and I felt it can still be serviceable in PF.
I happily drag 3.5 stuff into PF - that's the very reason I switched to PF, as it was a supported system that would also allow me to use most of my existing books with a minimum of effort.
EDIT: And I almost forgot - I just bought the Magic Item Compendium premium reprint because it was one of the few missing from my 3.5 collection, and I felt it can still be serviceable in PF.
This right here sums me up in a nutshell as well. Heck, the current campaign I'm running I started as "PF Only" - which is an oddity for me - because a lot of my players were new, and I still ended up bringing in the MIC because it's just too darn convenient to have a batch of interesting magical trinkets for people to choose from or make or for me to roll up and drop into loot.
Thankfully my players are coming along quite well and we're planning to switch back to the PF-based 3.5 hybrid I prefer once we complete our current game.
you could just multi class into whichever class gives you the whip archetype with the same amount of levels you would have used to PrC. In my opinion though they should just turn things like this into a string of feats though
That is my view on many of the classes, including the Magus. That said, I do recognize that for some characters, having a class do something specific is desired.
For Pathfinder I played mostly core because the Advanced Player's Guide got a little too powerful for my tastes, while I do like witches and oracles and used them. Up to some months ago I played pathfinder mostly Corebook + Psionics Unleashed.
For a 3.5 campaign I used the vitalist from Psionics Expanded.
For another I use 3.5 and homemade material.
Now I'm not playing Pathfinder at the moment, because I switched the campaign to my version of D&D World of Darkness with God-Machine Chronicle rules. [ http://forums.white-wolf.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1656505& . if you wish to see; all rights reserved to Onyx Path Publishing and Wizards of the Coast, I don't gain anything from this project except my amusement and the pleasure to help other people.]
As for Pathfinder, I don't particularily miss prestige classes, I like archetypes, and I think the quantity of material is far more than I could wish for. Even the only Corebook is full of neat feats that are enough. Perhaps I simply didn't play Pathfinder all that much, but the course of new "non-Golarion" material for me is fine.
Maybe it's just me but there's a startling amount of people who seem to have acquired pain in their nethers over a curtailing of massive amounts of multi-class-dipping min-max twinkish t!%$tery.
Maybe I'm the only one getting a mental image of a displeased feline expressing approval of this state.
Tangent of the moment: I actually use Pathfinder to run a LOT of the 3PP stuff I acquired over the years for sake of how interesting they are. But then, I liked Scarred Lands, especially running Shelzar-centric campaigns. I loved Hamunaptra, and while I've not picked up the Osirion book yet I've had the urge to play with the motiffs and themes, even if in a homebrew made from putting the two in a metaphorical blender. I've been hammering out an Ultimate Campaign inspired Testament-flavored Birth of Nations type campaign with a tiny bit of admitted unfortunate implications that carried over from the conceit of what became of the Orcs in Nyambé, coupled with a cultural revolution stemming from resultant half-orcs in the new region that might be viewed as a semi-parallel to the birth of, and exploitation of, Islam to conquer and override the local tribal traditions, while incorporating some of the tribal traditions as a means of unification and cultural identity (relating to a few interpretations of the hijab and what accompanies it based on what artifacts are part of faith, versus what ones are part of tradition).
I'm not even running a Golarion game right now, but I like to read up on what is going on in that neck of the Multiverse.
The only thing I really miss from 3.5 is some particularly pernicious Intellectual Property. And I can use that by making conspicuous use of my 3.5 books.
My posh new Pathfinder pad happens to have some decor from my Previous Edition hood, but it's the swanky parts, not the garbage. And I'm already making plans to add on some nice Advanced Class Guide renovations, 'cause they'll make my place that much more enjoyable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's just me but there's a startling amount of people who seem to have acquired pain in their nethers over a curtailing of massive amounts of multi-class-dipping min-max twinkish t#~%tery.
Just to be clear, not all multi-class dipping is also min-max twinkish t#~%tery.
|
|
And in fact most of it isn't. 3.5 (from 3.) cut down on the main issue a lot, which was removing the 1st level dipping, so for example not getting three free Feats from 1 level of Ranger, and pushing back a lot of things towards 2nd or 3rd class level.
In 3.5 Multiclassing was a decent way to be able to make an Archtype-like class. And just like any system, and that is equally true for anything Paizo has done, there are ways to break it, things that can be done that no one really intended or specifically recognized as an issue. It's not a lack of playtesting, and it's not a system fault, as much as the more material that is allowed, the more potential that adding A and B might make D a little bit more powerful than the C that everyone thought it was supposed to be. And again, Paizo's material is not at all excused from this. A Bard Dervish Dancer that dipped into Urban Barbarian so they can add in a Dex Based Rage, for example.
Maybe it's just me but there's a startling amount of people who seem to have acquired pain in their nethers over a curtailing of massive amounts of multi-class-dipping min-max twinkish t#~%tery.Just to be clear, not all multi-class dipping is also min-max twinkish t#~%tery.
I disagree with you on many things. This is not one of them.
In terms less befitting my name, I think Archetypes fills the niche better. I prefer them to level-dips and prestige classes, with a few particularly setting-specific exceptions (Prestige Classes should be organization-joining endeavors, or plot-relevant, or lige-alterations on par with Cecil leaving Death Knight to become a Paladin type of affairs in my far from humble opinion).
You can please all the people some of the time, or some of the people all the time. Thankfully, I'm one of the "some of the people"!
Maybe it's just me but there's a startling amount of people who seem to have acquired pain in their nethers over a curtailing of massive amounts of multi-class-dipping min-max twinkish t#~%tery.Just to be clear, not all multi-class dipping is also min-max twinkish t#~%tery.I disagree with you on many things. This is not one of them.
In terms less befitting my name, I think Archetypes fills the niche better. I prefer them to level-dips and prestige classes, with a few particularly setting-specific exceptions (Prestige Classes should be organization-joining endeavors, or plot-relevant, or lige-alterations on par with Cecil leaving Death Knight to become a Paladin type of affairs in my far from humble opinion).
The problem with archetypes is that they try to cover ground that Prc's should be covering. There is no reason why someone should not be able to make an admixture sorcerer or magus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well archetypes are fine for a specific concept that someone else has come up with.
My thought about why I am fine with multiclassing is due to characters like the one my wife made in a 3.5 game. Started off as an aristocrat (yes the NPC class) sorceress focused almost exclusively on necromancy spells, moving into eldritch knight and then later taking a level or three in cleric of Wee Jas whom she worshipped and was invited to join the priesthood for.
Her character was extremely far from min-maxed, though she was still capable of supporting the party. No archetype or 20 level single class ultimately is going to cover every choice players want, that is why I have always embraced multiclassing. A 20 level class is merely a "build" a game designer came up with and is no more "valid" for a specific character than a "build" that uses 5 different classes that a player comes up with.
Well archetypes are fine for a specific concept that someone else has come up with.
My thought about why I am fine with multiclassing is due to characters like the one my wife made in a 3.5 game. Started off as an aristocrat (yes the NPC class) sorceress focused almost exclusively on necromancy spells, moving into eldritch knight and then later taking a level or three in cleric of Wee Jas whom she worshipped and was invited to join the priesthood for.
Her character was extremely far from min-maxed, though she was still capable of supporting the party. No archetype or 20 level single class ultimately is going to cover every choice players want, that is why I have always embraced multiclassing. A 20 level class is merely a "build" a game designer came up with and is no more "valid" for a specific character than a "build" that uses 5 different classes that a player comes up with.
I wish I could favorite this twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well archetypes are fine for a specific concept that someone else has come up with.
My thought about why I am fine with multiclassing is due to characters like the one my wife made in a 3.5 game. Started off as an aristocrat (yes the NPC class) sorceress focused almost exclusively on necromancy spells, moving into eldritch knight and then later taking a level or three in cleric of Wee Jas whom she worshipped and was invited to join the priesthood for.
Her character was extremely far from min-maxed, though she was still capable of supporting the party. No archetype or 20 level single class ultimately is going to cover every choice players want, that is why I have always embraced multiclassing. A 20 level class is merely a "build" a game designer came up with and is no more "valid" for a specific character than a "build" that uses 5 different classes that a player comes up with.
Would that this were the rule, and not the exception, in multi-classing - doing so as part of a character's actual CONCEPT, instead of an ends to a (purely numerical) means.
I will admit, other than a few very obvious exceptions, the one thing that impressed me most about 3.5 was how methodical they seemed to be about making sure multiclassing didnt combine into something greater than any of its parts... I felt like *most* of the system felt like it was painstakingly crafted so that multiclassing never escalated the power, only customized the flavor.
I'm still more a fan of 2e because I don't think any 'fluff' should be represented by crunch... But I give grudging respect at how much effort 3.5 put into that up until a few notorious splatbooks, when they seemed to either making a crossover into 'mythic/epic' territory or just plain stopped caring so much.
Would that this were the rule, and not the exception, in multi-classing - doing so as part of a character's actual CONCEPT, instead of an ends to a (purely numerical) means.
Yes, and altho maybe two class can be a concept, 5 of them is munchkin. And there's almost no need to bring in two PrC's for a "concept".
Well like I said, my wife ended up with 4 classes (3 base, 1 PrC), but of course she didn't have a "concept", she had a character.
And there's almost no need to bring in two PrC's for a "concept".
Would that this were the rule, and not the exception, in multi-classing - doing so as part of a character's actual CONCEPT, instead of an ends to a (purely numerical) means.
My horizon walker skyseeker concept begs to differ.