| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, drow are CE and their priestesses have generally been depicted as full-on crazy train. If you can make friends with one, sure she'll torture you. That would be equivalent to, I don't know, coffee followed by a nice neck rub.
Doug M.
Seems much more wholesome than my own experiences with drow priestesses, the spell "black tentacles", and multiple castings of the spell "grease".
But wait; if your domain features are unimpressive, then you're taking the wrong domains.How many of those domain features progress beyond 8th level, though? Two of the most sought after domains are Travel and Freedom. Once you hit 8th level, you get the main feature. Sure, you can use them a little bit more as you level, but you've already got a good amount of use just by hitting 8th.
(By Freedom, I assume you meant Liberation? The Freedom subdomain is quite a downgrade from its parent domain.)
Anyway: A Travel/Liberation cleric 8/PrC 10 can Dimensional Hop 80 feet per day; a cleric 18 can do it 180 feet per day. This is a lot more coverage of multiple encounters, and makes the "take other people with you" function of the power a more viable tactic.
The same cleric 8/PrC 10 can be immune to grappling/etc., and make his party likewise, for up to 8 rounds a day. That's probably about 2 fights. The cleric 18 can basically forget about being grappled/slowed/etc., ever.
The cleric 8/PrC 10 would miss out on access to the following spells:
teleport
greater teleport
mind blank
As well as, of course, the domain slot, i.e. the fact of having one extra spell per day of each level.
Let's now consider a melee cleric (a friend of mine will be playing this build soon). He has the domains Rage (subdomain of Destruction) and Ferocity (subdomain of Strength).
Such a cleric 8 / PrC 10 would lose out on 10 points of damage bonus on up to 3+Wis melee attacks per day, compared to the cleric 18. He would also lose out on 5 points of damage bonus for each of his allies, in any round where he uses his Destructive Aura. He would also lose out on 2 rage powers (some of which are quite nice indeed).
This cleric 8 / PrC 10 would also miss out on access to the following spells:
disintegrate
grasping hand
clenched fist
crushing hand
As well as the domain slot, as noted above.
So, in each case, the PrC would have to give abilities that compensate for the above; and for channel energy (which, with the investment of one or two feats and one inexpensive magic item, can be quite a viable option in some builds); and and for the favored class bonus.
That's quite steep. There's a good bit of decent stuff that a PrC could offer and still not even tempt me from giving up those tasty, tasty cleric levels.
But wait; if your domain features are unimpressive, then you're taking the wrong domains.How many of those domain features progress beyond 8th level, though? Two of the most sought after domains are Travel and Freedom. Once you hit 8th level, you get the main feature. Sure, you can use them a little bit more as you level, but you've already got a good amount of use just by hitting 8th.(By Freedom, I assume you meant Liberation? The Freedom subdomain is quite a downgrade from its parent domain.)
Anyway: A Travel/Liberation cleric 8/PrC 10 can Dimensional Hop 80 feet per day; a cleric 18 can do it 180 feet per day. This is a lot more coverage of multiple encounters, and makes the "take other people with you" function of the power a more viable tactic.
The same cleric 8/PrC 10 can be immune to grappling/etc., and make his party likewise, for up to 8 rounds a day. That's probably about 2 fights. The cleric 18 can basically forget about being grappled/slowed/etc., ever.
The cleric 8/PrC 10 would miss out on access to the following spells:
teleport
greater teleport
mind blankAs well as, of course, the domain slot, i.e. the fact of having one extra spell per day of each level.
Let's now consider a melee cleric (a friend of mine will be playing this build soon). He has the domains Rage (subdomain of Destruction) and Ferocity (subdomain of Strength).
Such a cleric 8 / PrC 10 would lose out on 10 points of damage bonus on up to 3+Wis melee attacks per day, compared to the cleric 18. He would also lose out on 5 points of damage bonus for each of his allies, in any round where he uses his Destructive Aura. He would also lose out on 2 rage powers (some of which are quite nice indeed).
This cleric 8 / PrC 10 would also miss out on access to the following spells:
disintegrate
grasping hand
clenched fist
crushing handAs well as the domain slot, as noted above.
So, in each case, the PrC would have to...
You still get the domain slots and spells as far as I recall.
And that's actually a ridiculously huge problem with the cleric.I agree, actually. I just don't think PrCs that make the base class obsolete is the answer.
Well, the fact its a cleric problem unfortunately extends into its archetypes and PrCs and even the hybrid classes. Clerics just don't have a lot to give.
I don't think paizo can do PrC's right, many people will only be satisfied if it offers a net result that is better than a core class option. When you get there you are back to 3.5 which according to many people was worse.
That defeatist attitude really doesn't help. By understand what's wrong you can improve them and make them an option that adds to player's options and remains attractive and not over or underpowered.
As for the wizard: you give up school specialization power progression (which are great — again, if you pick the right ones); bonus feats are quite nice (item creation feats are excellent in most campaigns, metamagic is also quite good); and the free spells known are huge!School specialization powers are nice, but not amazing. And like clerics, most of them kind of peak at 8th level (except for the capstone abilities, and how many games actually go to 20?). The bonus feats are good, but it's 2 feats over 10 levels (ie 4 levels of a fighter's class features). As for free spells known...it's dependent on the campaign. If you have difficulty finding ways to add spells to your spellbook (scrolls, captured spellbooks, paying a wizard to copy from him spellbook, etc.), then they're amazing. If that's not an issue, it's a footnote.
A spell effectively costs
25 * SL * (2 * SL - 1) gp + 10 * SL * SL gp = 60*SL^2 - 25*SL
for a wizard to acquire and add to their spellbook. (Cost of a scroll plus scribing cost.)
For each level, that's:
1 35
2 190
3 465
4 860
5 1375
6 2010
7 2765
8 3640
9 4635
A wizard 8 / PrC 10 would miss out on getting for free, at maximum (if he chose max level spells to learn each time):
4 level 5 spells
4 level 6 spells
4 level 7 spells
4 level 8 spells
4 level 9 spells
Therefore he would have to spend an extra 4*1375 + 4*2010 + 4*2765 + 4*3640 + 4*4635 = 57,700 gp.
At level 18, that is approximately 10.9% of his expected Wealth By Level. Whether you think that is significant or not is a personal view, of course.
This is, of course, assuming perfect spell availability at all times.
As far as school specializations go:
Two of the best school specializations are Evocation (Admixture) and Divination.
Admixture's level 8 power scales in such a way that if your effective wizard level for the purposes of that power lags behind your character level (especially if it lags 5 or more levels behind), the power is now entirely worthless in the vast majority of encounters because it does not function, at all.
A diviner 8 / PrC 10 would have an initiative bonus 5 less than a diviner 18, and would grant its diviner's fortune buff at a value 5 points less (that's attacks, skill checks, ability checks, and saves).
Neither of those things is anything I'd call insignificant.
stuffYou still get the domain slots and spells as far as I recall.
Interesting. Do you have a citation for that? (I looked in the FAQ and saw nothing, though admittedly I didn't search the forums or anything.) The RAW suggests otherwise, but if this has been clarified by the devs, then I would stand corrected.
I would rather have the option to gain 'Prestige' in addition to your usual class(es) and abilities, much like a character archetype or whatever you want to name it, but it would take me too much time to figure out and wouldnt likely be very compatible.
They did that actually, with 4th. I thought it looked cool. 4th isn't 3rd though.
You get domain slots (I think) but I'm pretty sure you loose domain spells (which can be unfortunate).
I would rather have the option to gain 'Prestige' in addition to your usual class(es) and abilities, much like a character archetype or whatever you want to name it, but it would take me too much time to figure out and wouldnt likely be very compatible.They did that actually, with 4th. I thought it looked cool. 4th isn't 3rd though.
That's the thing I found the most interesting in 4th; OK, it was often underwhelming (3 powers of moderate value) but if forces a certain degree of specialization and includes it in the expectations. I've been hoping to try a 4e game for a while, but havent had the chance.
That's the thing I found the most interesting in 4th; OK, it was often underwhelming (3 powers of moderate value) but if forces a certain degree of specialization and includes it in the expectations. I've been hoping to try a 4e game for a while, but havent had the chance.I would rather have the option to gain 'Prestige' in addition to your usual class(es) and abilities, much like a character archetype or whatever you want to name it, but it would take me too much time to figure out and wouldnt likely be very compatible.They did that actually, with 4th. I thought it looked cool. 4th isn't 3rd though.
And after you hit 21st you pick a destiny. The ones I read about were packed with flavor. I thought a lot of things were interesting in 4th, but its always been hard to find someone to play that in the local area(hence me playing pathfinder).
Something to play with in a homegame maybe. Templates for classes.
Edit: different than mythic, ofc.
I would rather have the option to gain 'Prestige' in addition to your usual class(es) and abilities, much like a character archetype or whatever you want to name it, but it would take me too much time to figure out and wouldnt likely be very compatible.They did that actually, with 4th. I thought it looked cool. 4th isn't 3rd though.
I am not very familiar with 4th, I think they had a quite a few ideas that could be implemented in pathfinder in some way to benefit it.
I really don't know how it looks though, PrC shouldnt be archetypes or base classes when they represent choices you take later in your career, it's a bit like an added template I assume.
A spell effectively costs
25 * SL * (2 * SL - 1) gp + 10 * SL * SL gp = 60*SL^2 - 25*SL
That's the core failure of Pathfinder IMO. Wealth by level being what is earned in an adventure. I think a better way of handling WBL is ala Kirth Jensens Mojo system. (Unrelated to topic at hand yes.)
I hadn't thought how WBL related to PRC's, interesting observation. I don't believe that many are balanced around WBL though. If they were, I think that they would all look much different. If they were, you'd need to start taking into account the feat investments, free feats etc. I shudder to think of the math balancing the Diabolist, or Holy Vindicator haha.
So basically, find a Drow Priestess who likes you enough that she's willing to make you powerful, but also hates you enough to torture you mercilessly. Have fun with that.To be fair, a drow torturing someone she likes because it makes them more powerful seems very believable.
I honestly think that's a more interesting way to run a culture who torture a lot than the standard lol CE approach.
Fair enough, but you understand my point.
A spell effectively costs
25 * SL * (2 * SL - 1) gp + 10 * SL * SL gp = 60*SL^2 - 25*SL
Your numbers are wildly off because you are ignoring the section in the CRB which allows you to obtain new spells by trading with other Wizards. Have a look here under spells copied from another's spellbook or scroll. The cost is:
1.5 x (Spell Level squared x10gp)
which is pretty negligible.
I'm not ignoring it. You are banking on encountering other wizards, of your level or above, who have spells that you don't already have?
That sounds improbable as heck, especially in Golarion (where even mid-level characters are rare, and high-level characters nearly nonexistent).
For instance, my group is currently playing through Kingmaker (we just got through the second book of the AP). You know how many times we've encountered a wizard of at least our level? (Forget one that would let us copy spells, even!)
Zero.
EDIT: If you assume that you can get ALL the spells you want by copying it from other people's spellbooks (a quite ridiculous assumption), then the free spells from level-up would save you a mere 4*375 + 4*540 + 4*735 + 4*960 + 4*1215 = 15,300 gp from 9th to 18th level.
If you get half your spells from other people's spellbooks and have to buy the other half (a slightly more reasonable assumption, though still somewhat improbable), then we conclude that your free level-up spells are the ones you'd otherwise have to buy, not the ones you'd otherwise copy; and your savings shoot right back up to 57,700 gp.
Kingmaker may not have any wizard NPCs in the first couple modules, but that doesn't excuse the DM. They can introduce characters not mentioned in the module. It's pretty easy with Kingmaker to, at least once you get to the founding a kingdom part. Even if you haven't yet built any of the buildings that would house spellcasters, the DM can still have a traveling wizard pass through. They can still introduce spellbooks as loot. The bandits from the first module could have robbed a wizard or magus in the past.
If there is someone in the party with a spellbook/formulae book and the DM doesn't give them any options to copy spells from other books, then yeah, it is an issue with the DM. Now, if there's no one who prepares spells from a book in your Kingmaker game, then it isn't an issue.
"Things that are annoying in Paizo PrCs"?
Let's see:
- Multiclassing: I'M a bit tired that one prestige class demands one feature from another class when it could just have given that feature at its first level. Battle Herald demands you to be a cavalier and a bard. Why not ditch the bard and give you Inspire Courage at 1st level of the PrC? Also, the prestige class sometimes doesn't power up one of the class.
- Skill cost: The Shadowdancer demands 2 ranks in Perform (dance). The problem is that Perform (Dance) isn't used AT ALL as a key skill.
- Overshadowed by archetypes/classes: Many, many, MANY prestige classes could have been made into archetypes, or archetypes are just safer to pick than prestige classes. Why pick the Duelist when the Swashbuckler class will come? Why pick the Holy Vindicator when the Warpriest will come? Why pick the Nature Warden when the Hunter will come?
- Weak offering: The Horizon Walker seems very underwhelming for what you trade...
Kingmaker may not have any wizard NPCs in the first couple modules, but that doesn't excuse the DM. They can introduce characters not mentioned in the module. It's pretty easy with Kingmaker to, at least once you get to the founding a kingdom part. Even if you haven't yet built any of the buildings that would house spellcasters, the DM can still have a traveling wizard pass through. They can still introduce spellbooks as loot. The bandits from the first module could have robbed a wizard or magus in the past.
If there is someone in the party with a spellbook/formulae book and the DM doesn't give them any options to copy spells from other books, then yeah, it is an issue with the DM. Now, if there's no one who prepares spells from a book in your Kingmaker game, then it isn't an issue.
I have two responses to this. I'll start with the substantive one:
You write with the assumption (it seems) that wizards should, as a matter of course, be able to get all of their spells by copying from other wizards' spellbooks; that this is the design intent of the class and the game as a whole, and that wizards are balanced with this in mind.
Given that assumption, your views seem... reasonable. I might disagree for other reasons, but the basic conception is sound.
Note that under this conception, the two free level-up spells per level are a minor class feature at best, not significantly contributing to the power level and play experience of wizards.
I propose an alternate view: that the design intent is for wizards to rarely, on occasion, be able to get spells by copying from other wizards' spellbooks; that wizards are intended to get most of their spells (excepting the free-on-level-up ones) by purchasing scrolls; and that the class, and the game as a whole, is balanced with this in mind*.
Given this assumption, your views are quite a bit less reasonable. Now, the DM who doesn't provide wizards to copy from or spellbooks as frequent loot is not being a jerk, he's just running his world as the designers intended. (I note, as evidence for this assumption's correctness, the very fact that the AP doesn't have such wizards/spellbooks, and that they must be added on!)
Note that under this conception, the two free level-up spells per level are an important class feature, contributing significantly to the power level and play experience of wizards.
Again, I offer the AP itself as exhibit A. If you have to change things to make them work the way you think they should work, then you should take this to be evidence (though not conclusive proof, of course) that the designers of the game do not agree with your views. The absence of freely-available spellbook-copying opportunities in a published AP would seem to indicate that such a state of affairs is the game Working As Intended.
*I can elaborate on why I think this is, if you feel like going on a bit of a tangent.
---
Now the slightly-less-substantive response:
Do you not think that having to introduce new NPCs for the express purpose of channeling class-critical loot to one specific party member is... ridiculous, to say the least?
Remember: for the wizards to have spells in their spellbooks worth copying (that is, spells that obviate the need for free-from-level-up spells), the wizards have to be at least as high level as the party. Think what that means, especially in Kingmaker! A wizard, of at least the level of the Magister of the kingdom, is not Just Some Guy, he's clearly someone important, or else this setting makes no sense. The buildings that house spellcasters? They just randomly have no-name wizards that are at least as powerful as the most prominent wizard in the country? The bandits??? They robbed a wizard of what level?? If he could so much as fly and fireball, then he would wipe the floor with them! And if he couldn't, then his spellbook is of no interest.
(If the spellbooks came from a magus, the idea is even more absurd, since a magus has to be several levels above the party for his spellbooks to contain spells of interest.)
- Overshadowed by archetypes/classes: Many, many, MANY prestige classes could have been made into archetypes, or archetypes are just safer to pick than prestige classes. Why pick the Duelist when the Swashbuckler class will come? Why pick the Holy Vindicator when the Warpriest will come? Why pick the Nature Warden when the Hunter will come?
Well, the actual answer to this is that the Paizo guys don't believe in multiclassing or in prestige classes. They think that the whole idea of having levels in multiple classes is cruft from 3e, which would not be in Pathfinder were they designing it from scratch. (The reason for this view is that they don't think multiclassing/PrCs can work correctly, in principle.)
So, you're quite right to observe that there's no reason to take Duelist when Swashbuckler exists. That is, of course, entirely intended. If you want to play a swashbuckler then (says Paizo) you should make a Swashbuckler.
This is one of the things I DONT see as a problem; casters are pretty powerful as it is, and losing a level or 2 of spells is a meaningful exchange. Plus, the actual caster level of spells can be compensated for(magical knack & items).
I would be more okay with it if the class still progressed your caster level.
For example, 10 levels in Eldritch Knight should progress your caster level by +10, but you lose out on adding the PrC level to your class level for the purpose of determining spells per day or spells known.
THAT seems like a more fair trade to me, personally.
This is one of the things I DONT see as a problem; casters are pretty powerful as it is, and losing a level or 2 of spells is a meaningful exchange. Plus, the actual caster level of spells can be compensated for(magical knack & items).I would be more okay with it if the class still progressed your caster level.
For example, 10 levels in Eldritch Knight should progress your caster level by +10, but you lose out on adding the PrC level to your class level for the purpose of determining spells per day or spells known.
THAT seems like a more fair trade to me, personally.
Mostly hurts blasters anyway.
Well, the actual answer to this is that the Paizo guys don't believe in multiclassing or in prestige classes. They think that the whole idea of having levels in multiple classes is cruft from 3e, which would not be in Pathfinder were they designing it from scratch. (The reason for this view is that they don't think multiclassing/PrCs can work correctly, in principle.)
I'm having a hard time believing that because of their "Paths of Prestige" booklet they released. Some prestige classes are nciely done, like the Crimson Assassin, but if I take another PrC like the Battle Herald, a new one, it's just lacking.
So, you're quite right to observe that there's no reason to take Duelist when Swashbuckler exists. That is, of course, entirely intended. If you want to play a swashbuckler then (says Paizo) you should make a Swashbuckler.
Let's see:
- Arcane Archer: Magus archetype, although the Myrmidarch is close.- Arcane Trickster: Bard or Rogue archetype
- Assassin: Rogue archetype, then again, the Ninja has the Assassinate trick.
- Dragon Disciple: Sorcerer archetype or a neew class similar to the Dragon Shaman.
- Duelist: Swashbuckler class, or the Swashbuckler archetype for rogues
- Eldritch Knight: Wizard or Sorcerer archetype
- Loremaster: Wizard archetype
- Mystic Theurge: no idea... could remain as a PrC
- Pathfinder Chronicler: Bard archetype
- Shadowdancer: Bard archetype
- Battle Herald: Cavalier archetype
- Holy Vindicator: There's the Warpriest class
- Horizon Walker: Ranger archetype
- Master Chymist: Alchemist archetype
- Master Spy: Rogue archetype
- Nature Warden: Druid archetype or the Hunter class
- Rage Prophet: I could see this as a Bloodrager archetype, replacing the bloodlines by mysteries and such.
- Stalwart Defender: Fighter or Cavalier archetype
It has been said that the Prestige Classes represent a specialized training. I fail to explain how this is more specialized than an archetype that doesn't impose a skill tax, a feat tax, an alignment and multiclassing.
Then again, multiclassing has always been a weak concept. You essentially end being too many levels behind. A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 pales to a Fighter 20 or a Wizard 20, unless he would be considered a Fighter 15/Wizard 15 by level 20, which isn't the case.
Well, paths of prestige was released by the "golarion" folks, not the core folks, who seem to have divergent opinions. I'd be interested, in a similar way to 4e d&d, to have "late-application archetypes" that act like the prestige classes in 4e. I like prestige classes; a number of them are very unique, combine class features (mystic theurge & battle herald) fairly well or offer something completely different (horizon walker). I dont always want to feel like "ok, well, you've made this class choice now, and you're stuck with it until you retire".
Eh... I'm in an unpleasantly rant-y mood today.
Do you not think that having to introduce new NPCs for the express purpose of channeling class-critical loot to one specific party member is... ridiculous, to say the least?
Remember: for the wizards to have spells in their spellbooks worth copying (that is, spells that obviate the need for free-from-level-up spells), the wizards have to be at least as high level as the party. Think what that means, especially in Kingmaker! A wizard, of at least the level of the Magister of the kingdom, is not Just Some Guy, he's clearly someone important, or else this setting makes no sense. The buildings that house spellcasters? They just randomly have no-name wizards that are at least as powerful as the most prominent wizard in the country? The bandits??? They robbed a wizard of what level?? If he could so much as fly and fireball, then he would wipe the floor with them! And if he couldn't, then his spellbook is of no interest.
I don't think it's ridiculous. It's no more ridiculous than including a greataxe-wielding NPC because the barbarian in the party uses a greataxe.
The spellbook doesn't have to come from a wizard at or above the party's level. If you're a 10th level wizard, a spellbook from a 7th level wizard could contain useful 4th or 3rd level spells you don't know yet. For the Kingmaker thing, the most prominent wizard in the country isn't necessarily the highest level wizard. Especially when you consider that you can have buildings that produce major magical items when the party is still low level. Are these +4 flaming swords or whatever coming from 4th level wizards?
... So if you want to draw conclusions from Paizo stuff (which I'm not sure Paizo has thought this through, but what the hey), I would say a wizard PC should reasonably expect *occasional* access to other wizards' books.
Doug M.
Yes, that is what I am saying: occasional, sure, but not regular. Certainly nowhere near regular enough to get all your spells from copying spellbooks, such that you'll just never need to buy scrolls.
As far as whether Paizo has thought this through... either they have not, and what we see in APs is uncorrelated with design intent, in which case the APs are not evidence for either view; or they have, and what we see in APs is correlated with design intent, in which case the APs are evidence for my view.
In no case are the APs evidence for the contrary view.
(If we wanted to get technical, we might say that what we observe in the APs is weak Bayesian evidence in favor of my view, i.e. if C = "wizards should be able to get all their spells by copying spellbooks", ~C = "wizards should not be able to get all their spells by copying spellbooks", and A = "wizards from whom players can copy spells are a rarity in Paizo APs", then P(A|~C) > P(A|C), and therefore P(~C|A) > P(~C). Of course P(A|C) and P(A|~C) are both mediated by the probability that the Paizo guys write APs with an eye toward implementing the design intent of their classes etc., so just how strong this evidence turns out to be is up for debate.)
Well, the Paizo adventure paths actually aren't any evidence one way or the other about the intent of where wizards are supposed to get their spells. We'd have to look at 3.5 material for that.
I don't think it's ridiculous. It's no more ridiculous than including a greataxe-wielding NPC because the barbarian in the party uses a greataxe.
In the greataxe case, you usually have the NPC in question there already; you just switch out what weapon he uses, which in most cases is a trivial change. You don't introduce a whole new guy.
The spellbook doesn't have to come from a wizard at or above the party's level. If you're a 10th level wizard, a spellbook from a 7th level wizard could contain useful 4th or 3rd level spells you don't know yet.
If you're 10th level, the 7th level wizard's spellbook might contain spells you don't know, sure, but in no event will it contain spells that will take the place of the spells you'd take on level-up, because in 99% of cases, you always take for free spells of the max level you can cast. And if the found book doesn't replace the free-from-level-up spells, then it is irrelevant to this discussion.
For the Kingmaker thing, the most prominent wizard in the country isn't necessarily the highest level wizard. Especially when you consider that you can have buildings that produce major magical items when the party is still low level. Are these +4 flaming swords or whatever coming from 4th level wizards?
Let me consult the kingdom-building rules and get back to you. If true, this is definitely silly. I'm not quite sure what to make of it in terms of our current discussion.
(I also note that you addressed my less-substantive point and not my primary one. That's fine, I don't mean to put you on the spot; I just don't want the primary point to get lost.)
Well, the actual answer to this is that the Paizo guys don't believe in multiclassing or in prestige classes. They think that the whole idea of having levels in multiple classes is cruft from 3e, which would not be in Pathfinder were they designing it from scratch. (The reason for this view is that they don't think multiclassing/PrCs can work correctly, in principle.)I'm having a hard time believing that because of their "Paths of Prestige" booklet they released. Some prestige classes are nciely done, like the Crimson Assassin, but if I take another PrC like the Battle Herald, a new one, it's just lacking.
I mean, I'm not just making things up here, this is straight from the horse's mouth. Jason Bulmahn and Sean K. Reynolds said so personally at this year's GenCon, for example.
Then again, multiclassing has always been a weak concept. You essentially end being too many levels behind. A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 pales to a Fighter 20 or a Wizard 20, unless he would be considered a Fighter 15/Wizard 15 by level 20, which isn't the case.
Yeah, that's pretty much the stance the Paizo guys take. It's like, a class's level 3 class feature is balanced for level 3 characters; when taken by level 13 characters, it's unavoidably weak. With PrCs, you really can't predict at what character level someone will be when they get the level X feature of the PrC, which makes it basically impossible to balance well.
I can definitely see their point. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, but the motivation is pretty reasonable.
Well, the Paizo adventure paths actually aren't any evidence one way or the other about the intent of where wizards are supposed to get their spells. We'd have to look at 3.5 material for that.
Hm, ok, that's... certainly plausible, if you don't think Paizo would have changed wizard mechanics even if they disagreed with this aspect of them.
In that case, it may be worthwhile to separate the concept of "what was the original design intent" from "what was balanced given the game at the time [3.5]" (which presumably squares with original design intent) from "what is balanced given the game now [PF]".
We would then take a look at 3.5 material, as you said, and see what view it supports.
(Though that's certainly not a project I'd want to undertake, I can tell you that. :| )
It has been said that the Prestige Classes represent a specialized training. I fail to explain how this is more specialized than an archetype that doesn't impose a skill tax, a feat tax, an alignment and multiclassing.
A lot of prestige classes are too dissimilar from the relevant base classes to be archetypes. Take the eldritch knight, for example. That same concept was made into an archetype for the wizard. Oh wait, I'm wrong. They made an entirely new base class to fit the concept because it wouldn't work as an archetype.
Then again, multiclassing has always been a weak concept. You essentially end being too many levels behind. A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 pales to a Fighter 20 or a Wizard 20, unless he would be considered a Fighter 15/Wizard 15 by level 20, which isn't the case.
Equal levels of class A and class B is generally a pretty bad way to multiclass. You shouldn't multiclass just to multiclass. You should multiclass with a purpose. If you aren't gaining anything for what you are giving up, you aren't going to be very effective.
That said, 3.5 had multiclass feats and it'd be nice to see those come back. They let levels from two classes stack when determining a few abilities. For example,
Devoted Performer: If you have levels in paladin and bard, those levels stack for the purpose of determining the bonus damage dealt by your smite evil ability and determining the number of times per day that you can use your bardic music. This feat does not allow additional daily uses of smite evil or bardic music beyond what your class levels would normally allow.
Something similar is already present in some of the better Pathfinder prestige classes. Dragon disciple levels continue to increase your bloodline powers, master chymist increases your bomb damage (but not number of bombs), etc.
If you're 10th level, the 7th level wizard's spellbook might contain spells you don't know, sure, but in no event will it contain spells that will take the place of the spells you'd take on level-up, because in 99% of cases, you always take for free spells of the max level you can cast. And if the found book doesn't replace the free-from-level-up spells, then it is irrelevant to this discussion.
They replace your free-from-level-up spells from 2 or 3 levels ago.
Let me consult the kingdom-building rules and get back to you. If true, this is definitely silly.
I thought the kingdom building rules in Kingmaker were kinda silly. Though it was really fun once we realized the way to go was to build as many black markets as possible! :D We eventually got to the point where we were founding cities just to build a single black market there (and a couple houses to counteract the unrest). We'd already built all the stuff we wanted for roleplaying reasons, so there was nothing to do but maximize our income. I hear they've fixed this issue in the Ultimate Campaign version of the rules, but I've not personally looked at it.
(I also note that you addressed my less-substantive point and not my primary one. That's fine, I don't mean to put you on the spot; I just don't want the primary point to get lost.)
I think my previous post comes off too strongly for spellbooks. I think what matters is the end result, not how you get there. The important thing is that the player playing a wizard has reasonable access to ways to expand their spellbook. I don't think this means those spells can only come from other spellbooks, but that is the most economical way to do it. As a DM, you could instead leave lots of scrolls as loot. But it's much easier to drop the occasional spellbook or to allow the wizard to seek out other wizards. Besides, once they hit level 9, they can just teleport to where other wizards are. Actually, if you want four new 4th level spells, it's cheaper to buy a couple scrolls of teleport (2250 gp), teleport to other wizards, pay them to copy out of their spellbooks (320 gp, total 2570 gp), and teleport back than it is to just buy the scrolls directly (2800 gp).
I think similar stuff should be done for witches. If someone is playing a witch, they should have opportunities for their familiar to exchange spells with other witches' familiars.
Interesting. Do you have a citation for that? (I looked in the FAQ and saw nothing, though admittedly I didn't search the forums or anything.) The RAW suggests otherwise, but if this has been clarified by the devs, then I would stand corrected.stuffYou still get the domain slots and spells as far as I recall.
I'm not sure if someone else posted a citation to this, but here goes:
"A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/cleric.html#_domains
Each of the domains list the Domain spells which can be prepared in the Cleric's Domain Spell slots, and tie those spells to the Spell Level, never to character level.
By my reading, the ability to cast Domain spells granted to a Cleric is not based on their Cleric Level, but based on their ability to cast from each level of spell.
The outcome of this discussion is of particular interest to me, since I'm heavily favoring a four-level dip into Holy Vindicator PrC (which does advance spellcasting ability from previous classes). If my reading is wrong, I won't gain access to "Righteous Might" as a Domain Spell at Character Level 10, which would put up a big roadblock by significantly limiting the other spells I could/would cast at Spell Level 5, and would likely impact my decision to go into the Holy Vindicator PrC at all.
(I also note that you addressed my less-substantive point and not my primary one. That's fine, I don't mean to put you on the spot; I just don't want the primary point to get lost.)I think my previous post comes off too strongly for spellbooks. I think what matters is the end result, not how you get there. The important thing is that the player playing a wizard has reasonable access to ways to expand their spellbook. I don't think this means those spells can only come from other spellbooks, but that is the most economical way to do it. As a DM, you could instead leave lots of scrolls as loot. But it's much easier to drop the occasional spellbook or to allow the wizard to seek out other wizards. Besides, once they hit level 9, they can just teleport to where other wizards are. Actually, if you want four new 4th level spells,...
Considering the rarity of spellbooks in APs and how hard they are to price properly, it's actually a lot easier to let wizards find scroll repositories. Just stick a bunch of scrolls in there.
This is problematic, though, in that such a practice to just keep the wizard up to par could easily put the party well beyond WBL and create other problems.
That is why I don't really see the idea of finding spellbooks or scrolls as a useful replacement; it's massively more difficult to properly balance this and runs into issues that you may have to choose between intentionally crippling one character or intentionally giving the PCs way too much wealth.
I don't think Paizo has any problem with people getting extra spellbooks. As mentioned, Spellbooks do show up in loot, and I think James Jacobs has mentioned the importance of including the occasional spellbook as loot, in regards to tailoring the loot for the party. IF your GM is running an AP and you are several options in, and absolutely no spellbooks have shown up, that is probably the GM modifying the AP, not any statement on the part of the devs.
FYI, I think the official policy on PrCs is that they should be campaign specific. They are not fans of generic PrCs, which is why we haven't seen any in a hardcover splat since like the APG.
Then again, multiclassing has always been a weak concept. You essentially end being too many levels behind. A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 pales to a Fighter 20 or a Wizard 20, unless he would be considered a Fighter 15/Wizard 15 by level 20, which isn't the case.
A weak concept? That depends on a lot really. Some concepts gain more power, like in 3.5 dipping into barbarian or psionic warrior wasn't an awful idea for a martial. In 3.5 you also had Martial Adepts, who's effective spellcaster level(called initiator level) rose by 1/2 your level in other classes you took making them more dip friendly. A psion who dips into a marital class gets armor/weapon proficiencies and can use those pretty freely. Some classes don't have great scaling abilities, making them easier to dip into/out of, such as fighter(3.5 fighter had no scaling abilities whatsoever!). Some are front loaded, like inquisitor, ranger, or paladin, and a short dip does give you quiet a bit. Its not always a good idea, but sometimes it can be. Half and Half is almost universally a bad idea imo, if only because you fall slightly behind in going full in one or the other class. Pathfinder didn't really do much to help multiclassing(aside from remove favored class, which was a common houserule/forgotten rule anyway), but they did improve the classes without giving them out of class scaling and give us favored class which can help customize a class but are sometimes linked to races give you more to lose by multi-classing. 4th edition did something else and has multiple ways to take from other classes and you can paragon multiclass instead of taking on a paragon path(success for that is debatable, I'm no expert). Ideally you could design a game in a way that multiclassing and your core classes both look attractive without one being over or under powered to the other. Ideally...
One correction here:
The Wizard is assumed that he will spend cash to gain extra spells by copying them, NOT by buying scrolls. Scrolls are like potions, they are meant to be used.
And you aren't swapping spells, you are straight out copying them for cash.
The game assumes that wizards will allow this now as it is 'free gold'. This isn't 1E where nobody traded spells. Any city with a large intellectual population will have wizards willing to sell their spells, not just their spellcasting. If you are not operating according to this paradigm, you're out of kilter with the core game's assumptions.
The Wizard is also assumed that he's going to be amassing a very large library of spells, because that's where his power is. At optimal rates, which mean copying spells into Blessed Books, it costs about 90k for a wizard to acquire the entirety of spells in the PH wiz/sorc list.
The two free spells per level are not important in the greater scheme of things. This is especially true at later levels, when a trip to get more spells is a few hours you get from wearing Sustenance and a teleport away.
And while I may not have experience with all AP's, wizard spellbooks aren't that uncommon, and usually when they are presented it is with the caveat of 'add other spells as you deem fit'.
Serpent's Skull had like 3 wizard spellbooks you could find scattered around the city. Every enemy wizard you fight has one as loot, and they are generally higher level then you. Best of all, after you copy everything you need, you can sell the book for more cash.
==Aelryinth
The copying for cash doesn't include the cost of scribing; that also must be paid. That doesn't matter if they're copying from another spellbook or from a scroll.
|
Things I hate..
Unnecessary Alignment Restrictions: Okay, I understand Assassin is evil cause they have to kill for money. Which.. adventures tend to do already. But beyond that there is lots of them that require you to be Good, Lawful Good. Or for NPCs usually, Chaotic evil. And for no real reason what so ever, other than flavoring.
Unnecessary Feat Requirements: For /this/ Class you need mounted combat. Even though.. NOTHING in the class is mounted combat oriented.
Abilities that don't scale right: Like anything that keys off the PrC's class level instead of a whole character level. Granted I do notice that similiar abilities Assassins Death attack Vs Ninja's Assassinate, are practically one in the same. Since Assassin gets full PRC levels, and Ninja gets half Ninja levels.
Loss of Favored Class Bonus: This actually hurts quite a bit for some builds.
Prepared arcane Casters don't get bonus spells.: I mean Seriously? Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard and soon Arcanist. These classes don't get more bonus spells and instead have to write everything in. Meanwhile Spont and divine casters get access to spells no problem. Especially Divine classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared arcane Casters don't get bonus spells.: I mean Seriously? Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard and soon Arcanist. These classes don't get more bonus spells and instead have to write everything in. Meanwhile Spont and divine casters get access to spells no problem. Especially Divine classes.
This is a simple one to explain.
Spontaneous casters are CRIPPLED by not gaining new spells in PrCs, because they already get so few as-is.
Prepare casters are mildly inconvenienced.
|
|
Prepared arcane Casters don't get bonus spells.: I mean Seriously? Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard and soon Arcanist. These classes don't get more bonus spells and instead have to write everything in. Meanwhile Spont and divine casters get access to spells no problem. Especially Divine classes.This is a simple one to explain.
Spontaneous casters are CRIPPLED by not gaining new spells in PrCs, because they already get so few as-is.
Prepare casters are mildly inconvenienced.
I do not see this as an 'explanation'.
I mean, I understand you're looking at from the spont casters losing the ability to know spells..
But that isn't the point.
/arcane/ prepared casters May or may not be 'mildly' inconvenienced depending on the environment. I understand why spont know spells. But /Divine/ Spell casters are not inconvenienced at all.
If the environment for example is anti-arcane, or /that/ spell you need isn't available in any of the stores, or hell there isn't any stores.. An arcane prepared caster suffers.
Thats the issue i have with it. Particularly this could be of some importance for PFS, I don't know how spell scribing works there.
Prepared arcane Casters don't get bonus spells.: I mean Seriously? Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard and soon Arcanist. These classes don't get more bonus spells and instead have to write everything in. Meanwhile Spont and divine casters get access to spells no problem. Especially Divine classes.
Spontaneous casters get hurt too. The bonus spells known that oracles and sorcerers get really help out. Especially for the oracle, who gets mostly cross-class spells from their bonus spells. Prestige classes taking those away is quite significant.
Really, everyone should get their extra spells known when taking prestige classes. Oracles and sorcerers should still get their bonus spells known and wizards, witches, magi, and alchemists should still get their free spells known.
|
|
Are you a player or a GM ? Because i really bad how much few options are throw for NPCs. Prestige class being subotimal for players but ok for NPCs its a quite nurturing feature.As a GM i feel pretty ok with the prestige classes.As a consumer I'm disappointed and somewhat disgruntled.
As a player, I'm kinda disappointed in them.
In 3.5 there was always building up to the PrC. Just gotta do this and that.. and if I combine this over here.. I can become this! And then all that struggling will be great!
Granted, 3.5 had some really terrible PrCs. Not just broken ones, but ones that didn't work very well. Two I remember is the Geomancer - A sort of mystic theuge druid shapeshifting thing that did something.. with certian terrrian or something. And Fleshgrafter - A wizard who had the ability to use his knowledge of magic and stuff to create new flesh grafts, but he had to have 10 ranks in a cross-class skill to get it. Which means he'd be level 17 to get it. And the class required less ranks in heal than the feat it required.
But at the same time.. Pathfinder here does things like Umbral Agent - Taken at face value is actually a pretty cool shadow using spell caster.. but you have to be lawful evil. And worship evil gods. Now in the setting, I suppose this makes sense. But at the same time it kinds sucks out any ambition to create a non-evil shadow based PrC.
Thats kinda how it is for so many of them too. Its a cool concept, that could create something cool, but it lacks the final umph, or has requirements that go out of the character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you a player or a GM ?
Yes.