I don't understand why it was counterintuitive that "X can cast Y" meant "X can cast Y"
"they are spells but they aren't" IS more messy.
Only if you operate under the assumption that they are interchangeable. Spells and SP abilities aren't exactly the same, though similar. SP already were their own category, it isn't any more messy unless you choose to make it so.
Only if you operate under the assumption that they are interchangeable. Spells and SP abilities aren't exactly the same, though similar. SP already were their own category, it isn't any more messy unless you choose to make it so.I don't understand why it was counterintuitive that "X can cast Y" meant "X can cast Y"
"they are spells but they aren't" IS more messy.
it's just because to give the Spell(Su) entire structure in order to fling an handful of limited spells is too much convoluted.
the fact that SP abilities are not SU should mean something.
To be fair, they don't penalize multiclassing (as in Paizo). They encourage single class progression.
They were very upfront about that back when they were doing the Beta. That is why the favored class bonus and capstone abilities exist among other things. PFRPG has no penalties associated with multiclassing just like 3.5 (though 3.0 might have, not 100% sure right now, but I seem to recall level gap and xp penalty). Stating they penalize multiclassing is pretty much an outright lie in attempt to make a point. Which doesn't help your point whatever it is.
There is no penalty per se, but rewarding single classing while making multiclassing & PrCs not work well is effectively penalizing it.
Scaling abilities would just put PrCs back to their old place of "take this - get new abilities, don't get penalized, so no reason not to take them", which was another reason why they didn't want them as they were way back in the beginning. A pure power by taking PrC instead of staying the class you were.I think this is the link.Ouch! SKR talked a lot about optimization, power levels, and DPS, but not once about role playing.
While he explained the problems with PrCs, I thought of another way to deal with the issue: Scale power to character level not class level. You loose access to new features while you are in the PrC, but you pick them up when you return. Since they scale with character level, they are of appropriate power level. What you miss out on is new class features since you don't have the class level the feature comes in at. This would also make PrCs work at any level range, and would be viable at all levels.
His arguments about using archetypes rather than PrCs makes the assumption that you want to be the exact same character for your entire career. While new class features at higher levels are an incentive to stall in the class, what if you want to become something else? With archetypes, you must extensively retrain. With multiclassing or PrCs, you have no waiting.
No they would not. PF's design is something new at each level, so there are no dead levels. If I am Rogue 3/Wizad 5/Arcane Trickster 5, my proposed abilities would be Rogue 3+5 level with Rogue 3 abilities and Wizard CL 3+8 but spells at Wizard 3. I loose out on rogue talents and wizard spells, but I retain scaling sneak attack and scaling caster level. Later when I finish 10 levels of AT, I pick up a wizard level. This gets me Wizard 4 spells at CL14 (assuming R3/W3/AT10/W1). I loose out on many talents and spell slots, but gained AT abilities.
Another thought I had about SKR's talk: he made it sound like Pazio wanted wargaming rather than roleplaying. It explains a lot of their attitude about multiclassing and PrCs, since those are usually about roleplaying. Not saying some won't game the system, but the fluff attached to PrCs is all about roleplaying.
/cevah
Multiclassing isn't any worse off than it worked in 3.5. PFRPG is backwards compatible so all the exisiting PrCs are still fair game even if Paizo didn't want to recreate them. PrCs work the same way they did in 3.5.
It is only "penalizing" if you take the view that you should have everything the single class character should have while gaining the abilities from the PrC as well. Which is "effectively" power gaming.
Promoting single class progression isn't the same as penalizing if they allow multiclassing without penalty, which they do.
Multiclassing isn't any worse off than it worked in 3.5. PFRPG is backwards compatible so all the exisiting PrCs are still fair game even if Paizo didn't want to recreate them. PrCs work the same way they did in 3.5.
It is only "penalizing" if you take the view that you should have everything the single class character should have while gaining the abilities from the PrC as well. Which is "effectively" power gaming.
Promoting single class progression isn't the same as penalizing if they allow multiclassing without penalty, which they do.
PF started out 3.5 compatible. It has since strayed.
While you can theoretically plug in 3.5 PrCs, they need to be adjusted. Many have skill requirements, which means +3 levels in PF before entry. Of those they reprinted, they are different, not just in the adjusted skill requirements. Spell lists are different, synergies are not there, and the feats commonly used in 3.5 with them no longer do the same thing. They powered up nearly every class, but did nothing for PrCs.
A PrC should trade power with the base class(es). You don't get something from the base class, but instead you get this nifty new power instead. The point of a Prestige class is that you spent time and effort (i.e. prereqs) to qualify for something special. When the PrC trades out too much and gains too little, it no longer has any prestige. If a rogue PrC traded sneak attack progression for sneak attack at increasing range or with additional creature types, that would be a trade-off I would have to consider. Is my sneaky character wanting to do lots of damage or do damage at range or more damage to things normally immune to sneak attack. It would be a DPS decrease, but an options increase.
Finding the right balance can be tough. I'll grant you that. But it can be done.
/cevah