Pretty simple question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF: Synthesist Summoner, Druid maybe
3.5: anything with the name Artificer in the name
Rogues, Fighters, and Monks are totally OP in Pathfinder. At least it doesn't have the Samurai from Complete Warrior.
for 3.5?
Incantatrix.
Initiate of the Seven Veils.
Shadowcraft Mage.
That Eberron Gatekeeper PrC for druids.
That other Eberron Cleric PrC where you eventually got like 9 Domains.
Any PRc getting you 9th level spells in 10 levels. Leads to prompt Theurgic cheese.
Pretty much any PrC that gave you full casting + other stuff.
For the life of me, I can't think of ANY broken melee PrC's.
==Aelryinth
Back in 3.5 (besides what Aelryinth said) I remember:
Planar Shepherd PrC for Druids
Tainted Scholar for ...dirty tricks
Ur-priest was one of those PrC with 9thlvl spells within 10 lvls o.O
Caster bards were Sublime Chords most of the time (turned you into Sorcerer like caster with 9lvl spells).
Sovereign Speaker was the one with the domains.
Wasn't there a PrC that gave you +2 str each level instead of BAB???Don't know about being OP but i think that one had its uses.
Oh...and Soul eater with -2 negative levels per attack was for monks i think.
in PF we have Summoner, esp Master & Synthesist. They are broken in several ways. The MS can slow the game down hugely by having summons up constantly, and the math is very often wrong on the Synthesist, not to mention it can break some standard games.
In 3.5 we do have a few martial broken classes, 1st is the Crusader. Not that it's OP, really, but it's hard to play and if played well can't be killed by damage. This will screw up many scenarios. And of course the Frenzied Berzerker, which is both OP and disruptive. Ah and the dancing blades PrC, I can;t remember the name, which can be broken if combined with a fast flying race or PC.
If the DM allows weird stuff from 3.0 and unlimited access for buying spells, the archivist can be a broken class, as there are some PrCs that cats all arcane spells as divine, thus the archivist would then have access to every single spell in the game. Mind you, that's a BIG stretch.
I'll agree that the Frenzied Berserker could be disruptive, but dishing out massive damage or healing a lot of it is hardly broken.
Full spellcasting, that tends to be broken.
EDIT for clarity: want to see some full casting classes that weren't broken? Beguiler (fairly balanced), Warmage (underpowered), Healer (No comment)
Unkillable killing machine that turns on his own party and/or innocent NPC's isn't "broken"?
Honestly, since Wizard and Cleric are base classes, they define "not broken"*. But there is one other rather UP full spellcasting class : the Dread Necromancer. Mind you, if the DM allows you to travel with a army of undead, it can be broken, too. And if you start with Necropolitian and the DM defines one the powers of the DN right, you have unlimited self-healing, so it can be OP. Still the spell selection is very limited.
I have always wanted to have a party with Bequiler, Warmage and Dread Necromancer.
* Of course when you add some unbalanced PrCs or combos, they can become broken very easily, as opposed to a martial class, where you have to work very hard for it to be OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does every thread have to turn into another caster/martial debate?
* Of course when you add some unbalanced PrCs or combos, they can become broken very easily, as opposed to a martial class, where you have to work very hard for it to be OP.
+1
Warmage + Rainbow Savant was one of these.
in PF we have Summoner, esp Master & Synthesist. They are broken in several ways. The MS can slow the game down hugely by having summons up constantly, and the math is very often wrong on the Synthesist, not to mention it can break some standard games.
Neither of the reasons you gave have anything to do with the power of those archetypes. All you seem to have said is that they can be difficult to play well.
Neither of the reasons you gave have anything to do with the power of those archetypes. All you seem to have said is that they can be difficult to play well.in PF we have Summoner, esp Master & Synthesist. They are broken in several ways. The MS can slow the game down hugely by having summons up constantly, and the math is very often wrong on the Synthesist, not to mention it can break some standard games.
I gave reasons why they were BROKEN. Others listed them as OP.
Sov speaker and Planar Shepherd for Eberron, right.
Frenzied Berserker is considered the most powerful of all the Melee PrC's. As for 'attacking your own party', all a player did is go out into the woods in the early morning, and burn through all his frenzy uses. You bought the class for Supreme Power Attack, supreme cleave, and unkillability, not for frenzy.
The Hulking Hurler is the one that got +2 Str instead of BAB. It had great uses if you wanted to throw a mountain at someone. Why? Because there was a magic weapon property out there (Skilled?) that gave you Medium BAB. Net, no loss of BAB!
The other imbalanced Melee class was the original Shifter 'werechange' class, where you could pick a bear totem and get like +16 Stacking Str when you shifted, with a bunch of other stuff. Yeah, Bear Warriors could do the same, but they actually had to become a bear, and it didn't stack with rage. Shifting did.
They nerfed that one pretty hard.
Sublime Chord was the 'go to' class for Theurge abuse for arcane spells, with Ur-Priest the same for divine. SHadowcraft's shtick was illusions that were more real then reality. Incantatrix got to use metamagic for free.
The Warmage + Rainbow Servant was errata'd not to work the way people wanted it to, which is why I didn't refer to it.
----------
The fighter 2h archetype is paying homage to the FB with his doubled Str and Power Attack abilities.
Come and Get Me was an iconic Combat Feat called Robilar's Gambit that every melee took. The fact Fighters don't get it now is extremely unfair.
Pierce Magical Protection could destroy any magical effect that granted a person AC with one strike, no save. Pierce Magical Concealment ignored all forms of magical concealment, including invisibility! (mages hated both feats).
I'm not sure any Archetype can be considered overpowered. You can abuse mixing some sorc bloodlines is the worse I've seen, but that's more to Eldritch Heritage being overpowered, not an archetype or PrC. PrC's in PF are much more balanced then 3.5.
==Aelryinth
If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?
In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.
I wish I could favorite this twice.
I wish I could favorite this twice.If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?
In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.
Don't worry bro I got your back. I wish Paizo would use more PrCs to diversify class NOT more archetypes. I mean, archetypes are neat but PrCs feel more of a defining choice and feels somehow more satisfying. Having that *turning point* in a character's career is such a great feeling.
Edit: back on topic though, I find Synthesist Summoner to be the borkidy-broken class in pf, with other casters following in tow. Martial characters... let's not talk about them unless we're using the Book of Nine Swords or something. The book that made martial less sucky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?
In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.
I don't see it that way.
The fact is most PrC stuff can and should be options for the core class. There's nothing mechanical you can't stuff into a core class that is in a PrC. So, in my view, there should never, ever be a mechanical reason for requiring a switch into a PrC.
Now, if you want variety and flavor that has nothing to do with power, PrC's can ooze flavor in ways archetypes can't, and those are the best reasons to have PrC's.
In 3.5, there was NEVER a reason not to PrC. PrC's gave you all the benefits of the core class, + more. Playing to straight 20 was a fool's game...PrC's got all the same benefits, basically at negative cost once you figured the paradigm of 1 class feature per level.
By 3.5 standards, the PF core classes are all PrC's. Blowing them up further just isn't needed. You don't need to go into a PrC, because you're already in one at level 1.
==Aelryinth
[I don't see it that way.
The fact is most PrC stuff can and should be options for the core class. There's nothing mechanical you can't stuff into a core class that is in a PrC. So, in my view, there should never, ever be a mechanical reason for requiring a switch into a PrC.
Now, if you want variety and flavor that has nothing to do with power, PrC's can ooze flavor in ways archetypes can't, and those are the best reasons to have PrC's.
In 3.5, there was NEVER a reason not to PrC. PrC's gave you all the benefits of the core class, + more. Playing to straight 20 was a fool's game...PrC's got all the same benefits, basically at negative cost once you figured the paradigm of 1 class feature per level.
By 3.5 standards, the PF core classes are all PrC's. Blowing them up further just isn't needed. You don't need to go into a PrC, because you're already in one at level 1.
Right, dipping into many PrCs for power reasons was a 3.5 thing and I am glad the devs decided not to go that way.
PF is a much better designed game in that there's no need at all to multiclass, dip, or go into PrC unless you have a RPing reason or want a variant class which is radically different.
One of the best things Paizo did, IMHO.
If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?
In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.
I don't see it that way.
The fact is most PrC stuff can and should be options for the core class. There's nothing mechanical you can't stuff into a core class that is in a PrC. So, in my view, there should never, ever be a mechanical reason for requiring a switch into a PrC.
Now, if you want variety and flavor that has nothing to do with power, PrC's can ooze flavor in ways archetypes can't, and those are the best reasons to have PrC's.
In 3.5, there was NEVER a reason not to PrC. PrC's gave you all the benefits of the core class, + more. Playing to straight 20 was a fool's game...PrC's got all the same benefits, basically at negative cost once you figured the paradigm of 1 class feature per level.
By 3.5 standards, the PF core classes are all PrC's. Blowing them up further just isn't needed. You don't need to go into a PrC, because you're already in one at level 1.
==Aelryinth
The problem is that no publisher will release the same content multiple times and this eliminates the multiple entry avenues which were so appealing of PrC's. There is no reason, for example, that a sorcerer should not be able to be an Admixture Sorcerer. Using the archetype system this character option is eliminated. Also, the archetype system takes concept control away from the player. What if I want to get into the ability at 10th level instead of 8th. What if I only want to changes out a few features instead of what the archetype has prescribed for me? With a PrC you could stay in the class for 4-6 of the 10 level and go somewhere else. With archetypes you permanently give up the option to obtain your base class abilities.
This is not to say I dislike archetypes. I think they are a very neat and interesting addition to the game. But they do not function well to replace PrC's and the PrC's in pathfinder have, on whole, been pretty lack luster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the best way to deal with a FB was to have a half elf bard with that Racial Substitution Level ability which duplicated a "calm emotions" effect (IIRC) with a DC equal to your diplomacy roll.
Dread Necro wasn't that bad for a 20 levels class. At least you got something at every level. Sorcerer only had...summon familiar..as a Core Class.
As for the 3.5 PrC, I just miss the variety. Because they were many a feats and prestige classes. The difference between some of them might have been huge, in terms of power level, but you had such great variety.
As far as I can remember, the majority of the PrC I liked back then were considered very bad.
I can't tell for sure if the archetypes was the best way to go, though I do agree that having to dip 5 PrC was something that did bothered me too.
I think you can make the character you like, either way, and if you're not into minmaxing anyway, you might not even care if your character is a bit (or quite) weaker than he should be.
And, really, you can't compare the "overpowerness/imbalance" of 3.5 with that of PF (don't get me wrong that's a good thing).
*Edit: Fighter also had , as most of the base classes in the later books, an alternative class feature, a thing like minor archetypes one might say, that had to do with crashing your foes into walls for extra damage. I think you exchanged feats for that. Come to think of it, fighter was one of the base classes used for a 1-2 levels dip.
Actually, I'm kind of glad I didn't jump from 2e to 3x, until maybe the last 2 years of 3x, and while multi-classing was common, nobody figured out about class dipping, nor extensive PrC use either - we hadn't played long enough to even think of doing that. So then I moved to Pathfinder pretty much during Beta - and all these concepts like class-dipping was the first time I'd ever heard of them.
I've helped in the design of 3 PrC for Kaidan, and really all of them are about unique flavor, and not designed for power building at all.
Here are the PrC's that I had something to do with: Bugyo, Machi-Yakko and Mosa.
The problem is that no publisher will release the same content multiple times and this eliminates the multiple entry avenues which were so appealing of PrC's. There is no reason, for example, that a sorcerer should not be able to be an Admixture Sorcerer. Using the archetype system this character option is eliminated. Also, the archetype system takes concept control away from the player. What if I want to get into the ability at 10th level instead of 8th. What if I only want to changes out a few features instead of what the archetype has prescribed for me? With a PrC you could stay in the class for 4-6 of the 10 level and go somewhere else. With archetypes you permanently give up the option to obtain...If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?
In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.
I don't see it that way.
The fact is most PrC stuff can and should be options for the core class. There's nothing mechanical you can't stuff into a core class that is in a PrC. So, in my view, there should never, ever be a mechanical reason for requiring a switch into a PrC.
Now, if you want variety and flavor that has nothing to do with power, PrC's can ooze flavor in ways archetypes can't, and those are the best reasons to have PrC's.
In 3.5, there was NEVER a reason not to PrC. PrC's gave you all the benefits of the core class, + more. Playing to straight 20 was a fool's game...PrC's got all the same benefits, basically at negative cost once you figured the paradigm of 1 class feature per level.
By 3.5 standards, the PF core classes are all PrC's. Blowing them up further just isn't needed. You don't need to go into a PrC, because you're already in one at level 1.
==Aelryinth
wELL, it's a completely different design paradigm.
In PF you are rewarded for sticking to one class and going the course.
In 3.5, you were rewarded for dipping class after class for front loaded benefits that stacked, getting in and out at the 'best' times to maximize your power.
3.5 was an optimizer's playhouse. In PF, you have to take the good with the bad and go the whole road to the end.
It was and is a very deliberate choice. By forcing you to stay the course, it becomes much easier to balance classes against one another, instead of dipping here there and everywhere for wild and unbelievably potent combinations that were never guessed at when a class was designed.
If you don't like what archetypes do, just remember: Any class feature can basically be rewritten as a feat. Easily. And then you can abuse class features frontwards and backwards all over again.
==Aelryinth
Crane Wingers
It's one of the few things Paizo's game designers have called out as too overpowered for D&D.
I think if you took non-caster PrC's and Pathfinder's changes to the rules, especially feats, you'd find 3.5 is probably worse in most respects then dipping melee PRC's.
But that's an apples vs oranges comparison, more then anything.
==Aelryinth
Frankly, dipping wasn't a problem in 3.5, the need to dip was.
PF base classes are a little better designed, but I'd still take the results of 3.5 dipping over PF's base classes as far as pure non-casters go.
Now, if you want to talk about PF's secondary casters (Bards, Inquisitors, Magi, Summoners, etc) those are pretty solid.
Except Sorcerer, Wizard and Cleric which still basically require you to go into a PrC because there is virtually no meaningful benefits to sticking through dozens of dead levels.
And if ANYONE says "spells" just stop right now-- spell progression is not the same as class features. So any PrC where you are not giving up substantial numbers of caster levels is better than ANYTHING on the chart itself.
Pathfinder was like, lets make every class interesting the whole way through and strip Wizards out to where every single one is exactly the same!
They even went one step further and actually allowed Wizards to cast spells from their opposition schools-- so literally every Wizard can cast all the spells. There is no distinction except which they choose to cast.
This is why my comments were related to non-casters. Most 3.5 casting prestige classes were either 'decent filling for a concept but not really a power boost', 'too expensive in terms of spellcasting' or just right.
The Malconvoker, for example, gave up one level of spellcasting at the start, but provided interesting abilities in line with its theme without outright overpowering anything. I'd consider that to roughly be the proper balance-point for casting prestige classes.
There were good ones there, tons of variety, let you actually be good at the things you could do, ect.
Dips weren't really that big of a deal for caster classes except for Master Specialist (because you could qualify at 4th level and then get into the PrC you really wanted) and a few of the broader concepts that had several different PrCs for the same broad concept (Gish or rogue-casters primarily) but even here since they were character types that focused on less powerful spell casting (buffing for melee or rays) there wasn't that much overpowering with the dips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except Sorcerer, Wizard and Cleric which still basically require you to go into a PrC because there is virtually no meaningful benefits to sticking through dozens of dead levels.
And if ANYONE says "spells" just stop right now-- spell progression is not the same as class features. So any PrC where you are not giving up substantial numbers of caster levels is better than ANYTHING on the chart itself.
Pathfinder was like, lets make every class interesting the whole way through and strip Wizards out to where every single one is exactly the same!
They even went one step further and actually allowed Wizards to cast spells from their opposition schools-- so literally every Wizard can cast all the spells. There is no distinction except which they choose to cast.
Huh? My Sorc gets a Bonus bloodline feat @ 7,13,19. A Bonus bloodline spell @ 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19. A Bloodline power @ 1,3,9, 15,20. Not many 'dead levels" there. At every level where no Bloodline, we get a new spell level.
3.5 sorcs had virtually no class abilities, same with cleric, and wizard got 4 bonus feats. That's what he's referring to.
3.5 PrC's, however, frequently gave full caster benefits AND a feature at every class level. You were dumb not to change.
==Aelryinth
Paladin = HAX
the end.
While I can't speak too much to what was best in 3.5, it amazed me to find 3.5 Barbarian "archetypes" that replaced Fast Movement with Pounce and another that gave up the +4 to Con for an extra attack and stacked with each other.
I wish I could favorite this twice.If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?
In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.
Ditto. Although I have seen someone play a Hellknight.
Yeah, it takes some pretty heavy optimizing to make prestiges classes give back as much as they take. Thought you can get some cool stuff. It is really easy to make combos where you've got up to 8th level spells & nearly full BAB.
Overpowered PrCs:
-Champion of irori (especially with the channel focus trick)
-Mystery cultist (of arshea)
-Some others, though they take long enough to "set up"