I'm... deeply curious, what on earth did you think was unbalancing about a small damage boost (or a nice change of pace in the case of the Crafting feats, letting the Rogue make their own magical armory instead of pressuring the wizard to spend feat slots)?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has nothing to do with power or balance. The old ruling simply made. no. sense. Not only was it clearly at odds with the design of prestige classes going all the way back to 3E, it essentially invalidated the entire prestige class chapter of the NPC Codex.
Are prestige classes often under-powered? Yes, yes they are. The old SLA ruling wasn't the way to fix it.
So, as I've noted, is there a way to adjust the ruling such that it precludes prestige class entry but still allows races with innate magical abilities to benefit from feats such as Arcane Strike, which is neither unbalancing mechanically, nor hard to grasp flavorfully?
Is this something that was discussed when you and Mike and the team were going over this ruling, John, or was the primary focus on the prestige class issue, and this was an unfortunate byproduct? I'm curious. I know the original SLA FAQ had some addendums and clarifications posted after the fact, is there a possibility of adjusting this FAQ upon review?
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, SLAs just got Crane Wing'd hard, as did most casting based prestige classes.
I dislike this ruling, but not because I liked the original one. It was silly, made for silly situations, and wasn't great. But it did help give Pathfinder more of a unique feel to it, something that made it feel different from 3.5 in a ruling sense. Something that in 3.5 would have been considered a 'no brainer' was an actual rule here, and I appreciated the amount of unique builds and such that this ruling allowed.
So while it's probably more balanced (that's debatable), it's also more boring and constricting, which feels like a large problem here. I liked my strange builds that were possible due to this, and letting it go for this long is the real problem. We grew comfortable with the old ruling and accepted it as a quirk of the system, and even made interesting concepts around it.
So yeah, this ruling just sort of bums me out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit of a shame, and while I can certainly see the go-forward benefits of flipping this ruling, I'm a bit concerned that it also undermines the possibility of those older materials ever making the return to viability.
A mildly melancholic 'oh well' is about the way I look at it as well. It's not like it was greatly important to me. And I do think the ruling now is more sensible in general terms. On the other hand...
Are prestige classes often under-powered? Yes, yes they are. The old SLA ruling wasn't the way to fix it.
Well, who here is expecting that with this ruling out of the way they are about to be fixed properly now?
I'm... deeply curious, what on earth did you think was unbalancing about a small damage boost (or a nice change of pace in the case of the Crafting feats, letting the Rogue make their own magical armory instead of pressuring the wizard to spend feat slots)?
I don't think anyone said in any way that this was changed for balance reasons. If anything, this is a move to rule consistency than anything else. A good rule is one that would actually work the way the uninitiated might expect it too.
Regarding the rogue enchanting magic items, it makes more sense to utilize the feat that is designed for this purpose (Master Craftsman), than a loophole in the rule wording to backdoor it in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane Strike and Riving Strike via Minor Magic was just about the only thing rogues could do that slayers and investigators couldn't.
In the interest of fairness, any class can take a trait to add an arcane spell-like ability to their repertoire which would power Arcane Strike. Some of the traits even set the CL equal to the character level, allowing for full Arcane Strike progression, or Crafting feat progression, etc. I still see this trait which grants innate magical ability as a very sensical reason for Arcane Strike et. al. to function.
Regarding the rogue enchanting magic items, it makes more sense to utilize the feat that is designed for this purpose (Master Craftsman), than a loophole in the rule wording to backdoor it in.
That somewhat addresses the issue but is hardly all-inclusive. In fact I'd argue that Master Craftsman is more of a kludgy patch than the SLA qualifying for actual Crafting feats. Additionally, that feat does nothing for the canny Rogue who would like to support the party with a Staff of Fireballs, for example.
Are prestige classes often under-powered? Yes, yes they are. The old SLA ruling wasn't the way to fix it.Well, who here is expecting that with this ruling out of the way they are about to be fixed properly now?
Touche. :)
A good rule is one that would actually work the way the uninitiated might expect it too.
Anecdotally: my roommate is a huge fan of Gnomes. He rarely plays D&D-esque games, but when he does he likes to play Gnomes with a magical twist that makes sense to him based on the Gnome's lore. He was actually deeply confused when I originally pitched the Alchemist class to him, and he saw no way for his Gnome Alchemist to benefit from a number of "magical" feats like Crafting, say, Constructs.
The conversation was something to the tune of "OK, I get that Alchemists aren't technically magic or whatever, but aren't Gnomes pretty magic?" And I was like... well, yeah, they are. Actually that's kind of weird.
Then Paizo made the original SLA ruling, and he was happy, not caring a whit for prestige class implications. Now if I get him to play again he will be sad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the rogue enchanting magic items, it makes more sense to utilize the feat that is designed for this purpose (Master Craftsman), than a loophole in the rule wording to backdoor it in.That somewhat addresses the issue but is hardly all-inclusive. In fact I'd argue that Master Craftsman is more of a kludgy patch than the SLA qualifying for actual Crafting feats. Additionally, that feat does nothing for the canny Rogue who would like to support the party with a Staff of Fireballs, for example.
Personally, I feel that is a pretty ridiculous scenario, that a Rogue would be able to enchant a stick that shoots fireballs many times a day, but not be able to do summon the magic to do so himself. A Wizard would have to have devoted his life to the study of magic through 11 levels to be able to create that item, while you feel a rogue should be able to do the same, with absolutely no study of magic, simply because he can cast a cantrip a few times a day?
The concept of the Master Craftsman at least makes some sense to me. The idea is that you are so in tuned with creating an item ("best swordsmith in the land"), and can make it so fine, that you are able to have it accept magical energies, even ones which you may not fully understand yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug* Crafting really doesn't take all that much magical energy, insofar as I understand it. It's more about potential energy and understanding of Spellcraft. In fact, the crafting rules explicitly let you select out prerequisites (even multiple prerequisites) by increasing the Spellcraft DC by 5 each time, to represent the extra effect skillful study of Spellcraft imparts.
A Rogue has a huge number of skill points to invest in Spellcraft, and should be able to reap the same dividends if he has some baseline magical ability to benefit.
I'm sad. So very sad. I'm heartbroken.
I've been itching to play a Mystic Theurge for ages now, but... Now I can't. And it makes me sad.
If Pazio is listening to this thread, I'll just show my two cents on the subject- If race isn't costly enough, then may I propose maybe a feat of some sort? Maybe a feat specifically for Prestige Classes?
Currently I'm thinking a feat like this-
Treat the skill rank prerequisite for Prestige Classes as one lower.
You may substitute this feat for one feat prerequisite for a prestige class.
A good rule is one that would actually work the way the uninitiated might expect it too.Anecdotally: my roommate is a huge fan of Gnomes. He rarely plays D&D-esque games, but when he does he likes to play Gnomes with a magical twist that makes sense to him based on the Gnome's lore. He was actually deeply confused when I originally pitched the Alchemist class to him, and he saw no way for his Gnome Alchemist to benefit from a number of "magical" feats like Crafting, say, Constructs.
The conversation was something to the tune of "OK, I get that Alchemists aren't technically magic or whatever, but aren't Gnomes pretty magic?" And I was like... well, yeah, they are. Actually that's kind of weird.
Then Paizo made the original SLA ruling, and he was happy, not caring a whit for prestige class implications. Now if I get him to play again he will be sad.
Gnomes are blessed with fey magic though, and I don't see the fey as being much into making constructs. A gnome can certainly craft a construct, just not as an alchemist, and not fueling his construction with the minor fey magic in his blood, but by using his intellect and his training in the arcane arts (via a wizard, or arcanist class for instance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, further follow-up, CraziFuzzy:
The last home campaign I played in featured a buddy of mine playing a dedicated crafting Arcanist. He did everything in his power to maximize his use of Spellcraft to ignore the listed prerequisites for items, as he actually had rather limited magical ability due to prestige classing nonfavorably and lacking easy access to new spells to learn.
I played a Dwarven Rogue with Power Attack. Had I been a Gnomish Rogue, I could easily have seen my concept working marvelously with Arcane Strike in place of Power Attack; had my friend not been playing his Arcanist, I could even express the gnomish love of tinkering with new things by maximizing my Spellcraft, perhaps investing a Skill Focus, and take a feat to, say, craft Wands to use to support the party. Then maybe start crafting Rods to help out my Sorcerer companion, who lacks the spellcraft, spells known, and free feat slots to ever think of crafting them himself.
EDIT: Don't get hung up on Gnomes, though. An Elven Ranger has access to a racial SLA. He could be the Ranger archetype obsessed with studying Constructs, and want to leverage his SLA to Craft Constructs of his own at a higher level. He's uninterested in the further baggage of arcane magic and study that would come with leveling in Wizard, perfectly happy to ride his mechanical companion into battle at high levels instead.
|
Keep this in mind.
PrC's are still pretty much written from a 3.5 perspective, though some in the Path of Prestige may have a bit better progression than those already existing in the Core Book.
They never were fully adjusted to the strength of the base classes or made to compensate for the lost abilities of a class progression compared to the taking of the PrC. Archtypes, as has been pointed out in several threads, have taken over the mantle that 3.5 PrC's was trying to do.
I believe that a lower entry point for PrC's in Pathfinder in general would have been a better fit from the beginning (Lower skill regs, lower BAB regs, ect) instead of just changing up the numbers to fit the new skill mechanic (no x4 skill points at first level) and a few barely noticeable tweaks. (Shadow Dancer is never worth it in PF)
This little blip of cheese is just a hint of how much more ineffective PrC's are with the new, stronger classes in PF compared to what was in 3.5.
(Shadow Dancer is never worth it in PF)
Minor note, but I think that Shadowdancer greatly enhances the core concept of a Rogue. I've put together a couple Lore Warden / Rogue / Shadowdancers that seem to work great from a mechanical and lore-based standpoint.
An incorporeal sneakthief buddy, a buddy that can deal with the huge martial brutes that would squash the Rogue into paste, combined with a host of fairly useful SLAs (including illusion magic and teleportation) and the ability to Hide in Plain Sight is pretty awesome.
The main hurdle is... wait for it... just how hard it is to get in to the prestige class. As per usual.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're all pretty excited about the idea of creating new and fun ways for everyone to play around with new options, and it's definitely true that in many ways, the old version of the FAQ holds back any potential for such things becoming available for more characters in exchange for granting backdoor access to fewer characters.
I'm honestly hoping that the one thing that the Design Team takes away from this is that Prestige Classes have an audience in a post-3.5 world. The "Prestige Classes are too strong" sentiment has clearly calmed down substantially, and I believe that this thread shows that plenty of people want to try them out.
But asking players to wade through a mathematically inferior option to some golden field of intent in the higher level range just isn't feasible. Most games (sans PFS) fall apart well before any player reaches a level that's high enough to appreciate, say, the Mystic Theurge. This is largely due to a major component of Pathfinder's class design philosophy, which has been apparent since the Advanced Player's Guide: a heavy focus on class level, not caster level or base attack bonus. That design philosophy alone kills Prestige Class builds for people who are interested in them and leads to many pro-Prestige Class player's critiques of, "the Designers intent for us all to fit into neat little cookie cutters," even though that's clearly not true.
I'm not saying to make Ultimate Prestige your next product. I'm not even saying to put a single Prestige Class into Occult Adventures. But for now, at least try to include some feats that play off of Prestige Class features (Extra Shadow Jump or Extra Impromptu Sneak Attack would be welcome) and give us more ways to ease the penalties of multiclassing (a caster level version of Shapeshifting Focus would be nice). Prestige Classes are a legacy component of Pathfinder's system, and rather than discarding them completely, you should be looking for a way to make the system your own, just like you took the Epic Rules and made them into something uniquely yours.
You've got four of the brightest minds in the business at your disposal. It would be a shame not to use them to fill an area where the game is lacking.
When there are so many classes/archetypes that are designed for crafting, I feel any other classes being able to do so should have greater limitation than being restricted to a small set of races. Should a barbarian be able to make sneak attacks because he is of a particularly sneaky race? Races should not grant class features, those are the job of classes. The few methods of gaining a class feature of a class which a character does not have, should be costly, and have limitations. Like Master Craftsman is and does. The only reason you're arguing with me is because the wonky ruling that was in place set the precedent in your mind that this was an okay situation, and that it was the right way for the game to work.
In 2 years, most the people complaining about this will have moved on and be complaining about the next thing that has changed. For many, it'll be closer to 2 weeks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep this in mind.
PrC's are still pretty much written from a 3.5 perspective, though some in the Path of Prestige may have a bit better progression than those already existing in the Core Book.
They never were fully adjusted to the strength of the base classes or made to compensate for the lost abilities of a class progression compared to the taking of the PrC. Archtypes, as has been pointed out in several threads, have taken over the mantle that 3.5 PrC's was trying to do.
I believe that a lower entry point for PrC's in Pathfinder in general would have been a better fit from the beginning (Lower skill regs, lower BAB regs, ect) instead of just changing up the numbers to fit the new skill mechanic (no x4 skill points at first level) and a few barely noticeable tweaks. (Shadow Dancer is never worth it in PF)
This little blip of cheese is just a hint of how much more ineffective PrC's are with the new, stronger classes in PF compared to what was in 3.5.
I would be super happy with a game that had both PrC's and Archetypes, but I really dislike the idea of a game with only archetypes. I think that it puts a straight jacket on a character rather than giving it options.
Next time you are looking at archetypes ask yourself a few questions.
Does this archetype take away a class feature that is unique to the class? (Ie, bravery)
Does this archetype add in features that are not dependent on class features? (ie. Overhand Chop)
I posit to you that if you answered "yes" to both of those questions then that archetype should have been a prestige class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that so many in 3.5 (and apparently still in pf) would plan out their lower levels specifically, and make a character that in many ways is unenjoyable at lower levels, to get to a specific prestige class is, in my opinion, the perfect example of what makes the archetype model so superior. You get the flavor of your character from level 1, without having to wade through weird mechanics in the hope your campaign lasts long enough to get to where you were trying to go.
|
From personal experience, basically what crazifuzzy said. I once did plan a character with prestige classes...but ended up never reaching that goal, so wasted time as a multiclass character while not enjoying my time as much. So frankly nowadays, I don't plan my characters as much, and pick archetypes that come close to my concept.
Yeah I could waste time trying to meet prerequisites for a prestige class that isn't even good in the first place...or I could simply take an archetype that gives me all I need.
I think you have misread my post. I said that some forum posters (not the designers) have claimed that FAQs (any FAQ, not just this one) is 'always what the rules said'.
Sorry, I did misread you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no reason why the two can't coexist, CraziFuzzy. I know a lot of people were disappointed that the Iroran Paladin lacked any mechanical ability to access the Champion of Irori prestige class despite the great mechanical and flavorful progression.
The developers did drop an explanation if I recall, but I (and many others) still wish that the archetype and the prestige class worked better together. And it has been significantly longer than 2 weeks on that issue.
No reason to dismiss the possibility of change right now with the thought that time heals all wounds. I will still be just as a sad as I am now several months from now at the fact that my Druid Arcane Trickster concept can never come to fruition now, or that my character built around Quick Drawing mundane weapons (who is unable to further multiclass) can never effectively combat incorporeal creatures now that Arcane Strike is lost to him.
And I'm much less affected by this then other people I know, and others that have expressed their melancholy about this change. Think how they'll feel in a few months.
I don't think anyone said in any way that this was changed for balance reasons. If anything, this is a move to rule consistency than anything else. A good rule is one that would actually work the way the uninitiated might expect it too.
Actually, if how often the question comes up is any indication, most people find the previous version of the FAQ more intuitive.
In Fact, it was the subject of one of the very first Rules Questions threads I made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's quite the archival dig, Rynjin. Qigong monks are a pretty great example of a "mystical" class that was allowed to channel their innate magic in exciting and intuitive ways due to the SLA ruling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that so many in 3.5 (and apparently still in pf) would plan out their lower levels specifically, and make a character that in many ways is unenjoyable at lower levels, to get to a specific prestige class is, in my opinion, the perfect example of what makes the archetype model so superior. You get the flavor of your character from level 1, without having to wade through weird mechanics in the hope your campaign lasts long enough to get to where you were trying to go.
Yet there are concepts that are lost with a purely archetype-based system.
Sure, Arcane Trickster can be a Wizard archetype. But then you lose the ability to be a Sorcerer Arcane Trickster. Same goes for MT, EK, and plenty of other PrCs like Hellknight or Grey Gardener.
Prestige classes have a place in my opinion. I think in a lot of cases, you could use archetypes instead (Ranger Red Mantis Assassin archetype that modifies some spell casting). I think many PrCs can and should be shortened to 5 or fewer levels, but that doesn't mean they should be removed in favor of more archetypes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
many pro-Prestige Class player's critiques of, "the Designers intent for us all to fit into neat little cookie cutters," even though that's clearly not true.
I don't think they want us to make cookie cutter characters, but I do feel constrained by their efforts to make every character pick one base class (and preferably one of the ones that they created instead of the ones they inherited) and stick with it for the character's entire career, be that one level or twenty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yet another FAQ that leads to disappointment. The vast majority of times I see a new one, it's only there to limit character options by severely neutering said options. It just makes me sad and reluctant to look when a new FAQ shows up. I miss the days when there was an equal chance of my liking or disliking a ruling. ...sigh
The old FAQ was one of the rare few FAQ's I really liked. Now it moves to the dislike pile. I'd be curious to hear why it was reversed. I hope it wasn't because someone thought is made early entry prestige classes overpowered...
At least it seems to have made fans of less player options happy. :(
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strawman incoming, but I feel like the pro FAQ reversal argument seems to stem mostly from:
"The original FAQ never made sense to me so it should never have been there"
And the anti-new FAQ seems to be mostly
"Why destroy a bunch of character options/my characters after setting a precedent for their inclusion in the first place?"
To me, that's an uneven trade. You're potentially alienating an entire group of players, reducing the number viable character options and screwing over a bunch of pre-existing characters for... what exactly? Appeasement of a vocal subsection of the community? Because some people didn't like how others were having fun?
If there was a balance issue I could see this making more sense... but there isn't. This appears to be purely an issue of verisimilitude for a vocal minority and that's a terrible reason to say 'no fun allowed' to a substantial portion of players.
In 2 years, most the people complaining about this will have moved on and be complaining about the next thing that has changed. For many, it'll be closer to 2 weeks.
It's been almost 2 years since the 'imaginary hand' FAQ and I'm still complaining about it. I can say with confidence I'll be complaining about the ability stacking FAQ for much longer than 2 years. 2 years from now if things keep going the same way with the FAQ's, I'm sure my list of FAQ's to complain about is only going to grow. When an FAQ seems really bad to you, it's not that easy to forget. And this FAQ proves that rulings can be overturned, so it can't hurt to continue to let people know you still hate the ruling. I can only hope that THIS FAQ might be changed back to the 'old' FAQ.
In 2 years, most the people complaining about this will have moved on and be complaining about the next thing that has changed. For many, it'll be closer to 2 weeks.
I could say the same about the original SLA ruling, so that's a somewhat hypocritical stance to take. Did you move on and stop caring about early entry?
More importantly, this and crane wing make it clear that 'complaining' vocally is more than capable of influencing design decisions, and not always for the positive. A vocal backlash to this is probably what the design team needs.
|
Hmmm.
So I've got a character working on being a Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster.
Now, normally Witch wouldn't work for Arcane Trickster, because the prereqs are 2nd Level spells *and* Mage Hand on your spell list. But I've picked up Mage Hand as an SLA via the Minor Magic Rogue Talent.
From my reading of the FAQ, that should still be a legal build, shouldn't it? Because "the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly".
(This is a PFS version of a character I've already played in a home game, so I'm pretty familiar with her strengths and weaknesses. It's an admittedly strange build, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone else, but she's a lot of fun.)
I understand this ruling. It might stink for people who were using it to get early access to prestige classes and some feats, but it's there in the title:
Spell-Like Ability.
Why does an ability that mimics a spell count as a spell for prereqs, but an Alchemists' extracts (which function much more like a spell) not count as a spell for the same prereqs?
While I can sympathize with players who got shafted by this decision, from a DMing standpoint, I appreciate it. It makes things much easier; something isn't a "spell" unless it's a proper spell - it's magic given form by a spellcaster's will. Other things may mimic and even duplicate a spell's effects, but they're not "spells" in the truest sense.
I'm not sure I could have put this any better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly hoping that the one thing that the Design Team takes away from this is that Prestige Classes have an audience in a post-3.5 world. The "Prestige Classes are too strong" sentiment has clearly calmed down substantially, and I believe that this thread shows that plenty of people want to try them out.
I doubt the dev team is actually worried about Prestige Classes being too strong.
It's been pretty obvious that, barring an odd handful of prestige classes, the overwhelming majority of prestige classes were just awful in 3.5.
The reason Paizo has effectively abandoned prestige classes in the PRD seems more that they are slow to get into, require a lot of pre-planning to get into, and once you're in you usually don't want to get out for several levels.
Paizo seems more focused on giving players the characters they want starting at level 1 through Archetypes and even Hybrid classes
In 3.5, if you wanted your character to do something moderately cool, you usually had to play a vanilla Base Class or 2 until you hit level 5 or 6 - then you could pick up a Prestige Class and REALLY play the class you wanted to from the get-go.
You want a Cavalier who's a gunslinger? Take your pick: Musketeer or Dune Drifter. You want to play Robin Hood? How about a Hooded Champion Skirmisher. You want to play a sorc-wizard hybrid, but don't want to wait until level 7 like you had to in 3.5? Well, let me interest you in the Arcanist.
Hybrids even took that a step further: Hey, you want to play an Assassin, right? But you don't want to be evil? Slayer, baby. You were gonna wait 'til level 6 to be a Dragon Disciple? Well, why not a Bloodrager now. You want a Nature Warden? Try a Hunter.
Only a few things like the Battle Herald and Rage Prophet remain as pure Prestige Classes in the PRD. The Battle Herald, at least, fits the idea of a "Prestige" class - it's a "leader" class that's very much like the Cavalier-plus. It gives bonuses to your Leadership score, and its ability at calling out formations seems like something that requires higher levels; things like the Arcane Trickster, however, seem like they really should be a base class from the get-go.
I actually agree thematically with requiring players to take actual divine levels to get into Mystic Theurge - the entire point of the class is to hybridize the Arcane and Divine into a single class. Until they print a base class that somehow can do both and be balanced from level 1, players will just have to live through the requirement.
I think it's more that it was a simple fix that took less than three minutes of debating. It probably went like:
"Okay, this is creating rules nightmares, completely contradicts lots of things, is the only thing that does this despite several other mechanics of the game just like it being ruled entirely differently, and many people understand immediately that an Ability and a Spell are two entirely different things, even if one is named 'Spell-Like', so should we just go back to what most people already assume?"
"yeah, sounds good to us"
"Okay, then - SLAs aren't spells for meeting prereqs anymore. Next FAQ".
At first I didn't care for archetypes, but they've grown on me. Between archetypes and multi-classing, I'm not sure I see a need for prestige classes (in the general sense -- I get that the situation we have now is not ideal for some concepts).
Pathfinder 2E? ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone I play with (at least 3 different groups, ranging from 5 to 7 players and play experience from 1 to 30 years) builds their characters based on flavor and story as opposed to how much damage they can deal. Therefore, when Prestige Classes make sense to them, the players in my groups utilize them.
It should also be noted, none of my groups have ever raised any question about entry requirements. The newest FAQ ruling falls in line with all of our base assumptions that we've been running with all along since 3rd Edition came out (i.e. nobody ever built a character based off of using SLA's to meet a prerequisite).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I kinda like the idea of SLA being used to gain early entry into prestige classes, not from a crunch perspective, but from an actual fluff perspective-
Sure, you might not be as well versed, but the thing is, you have lived with the magic in your blood your life. You have felt the magic flow through you with immense ease. You've lived with this magic all your life. You've felt Divine or arcane magic flow through your blood. And you've known how to channel it forever- Even if it's one thing. To this day, you are fully aware of how your spell works- To the core, even. You know your spell inside out, even if not how most others draw it into existence. It's a jump. A hurdle. And, oftentimes, what's important to performing magic is knowing how it works- Not the prescise gestures, or as much training. You need to know how second level spell work, as listed, and, the thing is, you DO know. You HAVE known for most your life.
-Snip-
The question is, is it a "This OR that" thing? While Archetypes are wonderful, Prestige Classes offer quite a bit more versatility in character creation, allowing for a even larger range of character options, even if it is later in a characters life. Archetypes AND prestige classes may work in harmony to make a wonderful mixture of beauty so that a concept can be realized to perfection, rather than simply to a passable degree.
So, the point still stands- Why is it "YOU CAN EITHER BE WITH THE ARCHETYPE SYSTEM OR BE WITH THE PRESTIGE CLASS SYSTEM, YOU CANNOT WISH FOR THEM TO LIVE IN HARMONY FOR THEY CANNOT LIVE IN HARMONY! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! IN THE MOST LITERAL MEANING POSSIBLE! YOU CANNOT DO SO! EVER! UNDERSTAND?! IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!"My apologies if it seems rude, it's just that your phrasing of it kinda implies this stance on the subject.
I understand your dislike of the 3.5 system of doing things, however, I'd argue that, while Archetypes can handle a ton of things, they cannot handle EVERYTHING. You cannot make a archetype for every character archetype that exists. That's the primary fault in the Archetype system. Prestige classes can fill the remaining fault in this respect. Just my two cents on the concept.
Pathfinder 2E? ;-)
Not happening.
If Pathfinder 2nd Ed comes, expect it to be little more than codifying some of the most-popular rules from Pathfinder Unchained as simply core rules of the game that won't cause any of the other books in the PRD to go belly-up due to being incompatible with the new rules.
So I have an EK that early qualified with Scryer subschool does it still count? Does it only apply to racials or
what?
The fact that so many in 3.5 (and apparently still in pf) would plan out their lower levels specifically, and make a character that in many ways is unenjoyable at lower levels, to get to a specific prestige class is, in my opinion, the perfect example of what makes the archetype model so superior. You get the flavor of your character from level 1, without having to wade through weird mechanics in the hope your campaign lasts long enough to get to where you were trying to go.
This still happens and will happen, only with feats or ordinary multiclassing. People will go along with being a sucky character for a couple of levels in order to get dexterity to damage for example. Some builds (espec. TWF or style based) can take as long to come online as entering a prestige class.
The fact that so many in 3.5 (and apparently still in pf) would plan out their lower levels specifically, and make a character that in many ways is unenjoyable at lower levels, to get to a specific prestige class is, in my opinion, the perfect example of what makes the archetype model so superior. You get the flavor of your character from level 1, without having to wade through weird mechanics in the hope your campaign lasts long enough to get to where you were trying to go.This still happens and will happen, only with feats or ordinary multiclassing. People will go along with being a sucky character for a couple of levels in order to get dexterity to damage for example. Some builds (espec. TWF or style based) can take as long to come online as entering a prestige class.
Also, it seems fair to say that what Crazi describes had nothing to do with archetypes, but DOES indicate that PrC emtry requirements are too rigorous.
The question is, is it a "This OR that" thing? While Archetypes are wonderful, Prestige Classes offer quite a bit more versatility in character creation, allowing for a even larger range of character options, even if it is later in a characters life. Archetypes AND prestige classes may work in harmony to make a wonderful mixture of beauty so that a concept can be realized to perfection, rather than simply to a passable degree.
So, the point still stands- Why is it "YOU CAN EITHER BE WITH THE ARCHETYPE SYSTEM OR BE WITH THE PRESTIGE CLASS SYSTEM, YOU CANNOT WISH FOR THEM TO LIVE IN HARMONY FOR THEY CANNOT LIVE IN HARMONY! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! IN THE MOST LITERAL MEANING POSSIBLE! YOU CANNOT DO SO! EVER! UNDERSTAND?! IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!"
My apologies if it seems rude, it's just that your phrasing of it kinda implies this stance on the subject.
I understand your dislike of the 3.5 system of doing things, however, I'd argue that, while Archetypes can handle a ton of things, they cannot handle EVERYTHING. You cannot make a archetype for every...
Actually, on the contrary, I LIKE Prestige Classes. AND I like Archetypes.
And I see no reason to not use the two together.
Hell, one of my favorite builds is a Strategist Cavalier / Exemplar Brawler / Battle Herald.
I just mean that I understand the desire on Paizo's part to let most people have their designs from as early as lv2, with Prestige Classes being something that, by design, really SHOULD be something only attainable after a few levels of adventuring.
Especially after 3.5 all but requiring Prestige Classes to do anything even mildly interesting (oh, hey, look - Thief Acrobat! Yeah, I totally can't be that from level 1 because... reasons). Pathfinder's been a bit better
Case in point, my buddy the Battle Herald. I think it kinda ruins the flavor a bit to have it be anything BUT a Prestige Class because everything about it kinda screams "ship's commander" or "general on the front lines".
Master Spy falls under the same thematic sense - you're a MASTER spy; while of course you have characters like Cleaners and Daring Infiltrators from level 1, being a Master Spy kinda predicates that you don't start at Character Level 1.
Going outside of the PRD, there're things like Mammoth Rider. I mean, you're riding HUGE creatures. That's pretty stinkin' fantastic, and a great design to let virtually anyone into.
Conversely, I see no reason that something like the Arcane Trickster shouldn't be a Base Class. Nothing about it really says that it NEEDS to be a several-levels-in-entry class at all. Rather than even requiring characters to take races or classes to enter an Arcane Trickster early by keeping the SLA rule around, I'd like to see an Archetype or Hybrid Class be made for it (in the case of the Hybrid, either a Bard-Rogue or a Sorcerer-Rogue).
Same goes for the Arcane Archer, honestly - why can't you be an AA from level 1 onward (I guess that's KINDA what the Myrmidarch is supposed to be, though - don't know how well it really succeeds at that).
I'm glad the Eldritch Knight got remade as the Magus, the Duelist as the Swashbuckler, the Dragon Disciple the Bloodrager, the Assassin the Slayer, and the Nature Warden the Hunter.
And I'd rather see the Battle Herald, Master Spy, Master Chymist, Holy Vindicator, Horizon Walker, and even the Mystic Theurge stay as Prestige Classes, because of what they are - things that don't seem like they should be, or can't be, taken at Character Level 1 by their very nature.
I really wouldn't mind seeing all the Prestige Classes from Paths of Prestige get upgraded to PRD-status as well, honestly. I really like that book.
I'd just rather see Prestige Classes be treated as something special and awesome, rather than the all-but-required nonsense they were in 3.5