Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Coffee Demon wrote:


3) It is inevitable that a new edition will emerge at some point. No RPG system (that I'm aware of) has thrived and lasted for more than 10-15 years(..?) (I may be wrong)

That depends on what you consider a new edition...and how it is done.

OD&D/AD&D were basically the same game. OD&D came out first, but as things were added, a compilation of sorts was needed. AD&D to me was more a compilation of all the stuff that was out there for OD&D and in essence was the same system, and basically completely compatible in comparison.

AD&D 2e had almost the same things as AD&D 1e (despite what some detractors would think) but cleaned up and simplified things to a degree. They were the same game. In fact, there were more similarities between 1e and 2e than 3e and 3.5 from my perspective. In that light...today...I'd say they'd just be called a cleanup rather than a new edition...

They even had a grandfather clause in 2e saying if you wanted, anything from 1e transferred over.

3e was sort of a collection of the Options books of 2e, but changed completely with a makeover to create a totally and completely different system. Compatibility, in regards to what OD&D to AD&D or 1e to 2e were...was a complete joke in relation. Sure, you could convert things, but it wasn't basically seamless integration almost like previously.

In that light, if you consider OD&D and AD&D basically all the same system (and I feel they were...3e was the first time you see a serious change in the mechanics and dynamics of it, which started the entire...this next edition HAS to be different) than that edition lasted 25 YEARS.

Now, for a PF2e, you'd have to ask yourself, would you want something more akin to the OD&D to 1e thing (I'd say not, that would accumulate all the Ultimate and Advanced books...which would make for a really massive tome...and the CRB is already pretty big), and 1e to 2e transition? If they did it like that...people might not even NOTICE the changes in many aspects....

I think most people would be happy with a AD&D to AD&D 2ed style transition. Fixing the problem area keeping the core d20 intact for attacks and checks, saves. but remove all the PCRs, turn them in to archetypes, balance out the classes little more, maybe make VMC the standard Multiclassing rules, a cleaned up and more well written version of the new unchained action economy to become the standard,Clean up the casting system a little bit, Make maybe using the Ararchist style of casting as bases to start. same for mounted combat, and combat maneuvers. That alone is about the equivalent of AD&D to 2ed AD&D change all the old stuff is still usable but require some conversion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
maybe make VMC the standard Multiclassing rules

*Shudders*

That'd be pretty horrific, ruin so many characters. Ruin so many concepts..... I mean, I'd go back to 1e if Unchained Economy became standard already but that would be horrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
KainPen wrote:
OD&D/AD&D were basically the same game. OD&D came out first, but as things were added, a compilation of sorts was needed. AD&D to me was more a compilation of all the stuff that was out there for OD&D and in essence was the same system, and basically completely compatible in comparison.

You don't think splitting class and race was a huge deal? I mean, yes, from an adventure/monster standpoint, the game was close enough that you could run Basic modules for AD&D. But from a character creation and capabilities standpoint, they were very different games. Much more different than 3.0 and Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, I'd really hate to go to the Unchained Mutliclassing rules. I'm also not sure about the variant action economy. I've looked at it, haven't spent time to grok it. My first impression was that it sounded complicated enough that it wasn't worth learning if I wasn't going to use it, and it didn't immediately seem compelling enough to try to convince people to learn a new system for my home game.

On the other hand, I would really like to see inherent bonuses become part of the standard system. It's sad that various items are effectively required items (stat boosting belt, stat boosting headband, magic armor, magic weapon, etc.), using up slots that could be used for cool and flavorful other things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

Yeah, I'd really hate to go to the Unchained Mutliclassing rules. I'm also not sure about the variant action economy. I've looked at it, haven't spent time to grok it. My first impression was that it sounded complicated enough that it wasn't worth learning if I wasn't going to use it, and it didn't immediately seem compelling enough to try to convince people to learn a new system for my home game.

On the other hand, I would really like to see inherent bonuses become part of the standard system. It's sad that various items are effectively required items (stat boosting belt, stat boosting headband, magic armor, magic weapon, etc.), using up slots that could be used for cool and flavorful other things.

I like the VMC rules, but they don't replace other existing multiclassing rules. Basically they work best if you want some flavor from another class without taking a full class level, or going the archetype route.


I think the best use of VCM is simply as a thing to give to fighters for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, if you allowed ONLY Variant Multiclassing, you would get rid of a LOT of options people have now. To some extent, this is also true of prestige classes.

Edit: Also, as of now, the VMC options are of REALLY uneven quality, such as VMC Fighter, VMC Magus, and VMC Wizard being pretty good for a decent fraction of builds (but VMC Magus has a big trap in the midde of it for non-spellcaster buids), and VMC Gunslinger, VMC Monk, and VMC Witch being just BAD (and various others in between).

For prestige classes, I think that one problem (inherited from D&D 3.x) is that for the most part, they don't actually have any PRESTIGE in them -- they are just advanced classes that you can't start in at 1st level. By the way, nothing is wrong with the concept of advanced classes that you can't start in at first level, but these should be a separate category, labeled as such (I have actually been toying with ideas of making what are now considered base class ito advanced classes of this type but with low entry requirements, and getting rid of the rule that creatures of <2 HD have no racial HD -- instead, EVERYBODY has at least 1 HD, but for civilized creatures racial HD correspond to traditionally NPC classes, which get rebuilt into background classes . . . But I diguress). Anyway, actual prestige classes should be things for which you have to pass some kind of entry exam/membership initiation/rite of passage. Hellknights (both types) are an excellent Pathfinder examples, although these pretige classes (especially Signifer) need updates for use with more modern material. The Prestige Paladin of D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Kirthfinder is an example of something that is actually a base class now that SHOULD be a prestige class (as with Hellknights, what religion in their right mind would trust some random worshipper or even priest with their Smiting power, among other things, when they haven't yet proven their loyalty or steadfastness? Same thing for Inquisitor, by the way, although I love the Inquisitor chassis, so I would keep this and refluff and tweak it for use under another name (likely in a remix with Warpriest).


Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
maybe make VMC the standard Multiclassing rules

*Shudders*

That'd be pretty horrific, ruin so many characters. Ruin so many concepts..... I mean, I'd go back to 1e if Unchained Economy became standard already but that would be horrible.

your thinking old system, In a new system you be or new edition, most concepts as all new classes or archetypes much like they are starting to do now So VMC would be best way to focus on building on what we currently have. Multi-classing is a poor option in general in the current system as you end up vastly weaker then most single classes.

It not like it was in 1st and 2nd where multi classing was a powerful options. 3.X was made dependent on it. In pathfinder made single classing the better option as they are more powerful if they stick to one class, which is why it a poor option and it and Prestige Class do not work well. Archetypes, and stacking archetypes, and VMC expands concepts with out hurting the play to much.


rknop wrote:

Yeah, I'd really hate to go to the Unchained Mutliclassing rules. I'm also not sure about the variant action economy. I've looked at it, haven't spent time to grok it. My first impression was that it sounded complicated enough that it wasn't worth learning if I wasn't going to use it, and it didn't immediately seem compelling enough to try to convince people to learn a new system for my home game.

On the other hand, I would really like to see inherent bonuses become part of the standard system. It's sad that various items are effectively required items (stat boosting belt, stat boosting headband, magic armor, magic weapon, etc.), using up slots that could be used for cool and flavorful other things.

Realistically multi-classing is not even need in a new edition and could be thrown out completely. You just make new base Classes that fill missing concepts or archetypes to fill those roles.

The new action in economy is great, and easier then current rules, along with it cleaning up stuff that does not work as written. I have a player that been playing a long time but he always have problems with rules, and forgets things and wanting to do more then he normal can do under the current rule set. we did several session of new action economy, he picked it up very quickly and actual was able to do a lot of the things he could not before.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Yes, if you allowed ONLY Variant Multiclassing, you would get rid of a LOT of options people have now. To some extent, this is also true of prestige classes.

Edit: Also, as of now, the VMC options are of REALLY uneven quality, such as VMC Fighter, VMC Magus, and VMC Wizard being pretty good for a decent fraction of builds (but VMC Magus has a big trap in the midde of it for non-spellcaster buids), and VMC Gunslinger, VMC Monk, and VMC Witch being just BAD (and various others in between).

For prestige classes, I think that one problem (inherited from D&D 3.x) is that for the most part, they don't actually have any PRESTIGE in them -- they are just advanced classes that you can't start in at 1st level. By the way, nothing is wrong with the concept of advanced classes that you can't start in at first level, but these should be a separate category, labeled as such (I have actually been toying with ideas of making what are now considered base class ito advanced classes of this type but with low entry requirements, and getting rid of the rule that creatures of <2 HD have no racial HD -- instead, EVERYBODY has at least 1 HD, but for civilized creatures racial HD correspond to traditionally NPC classes, which get rebuilt into background classes . . . But I diguress). Anyway, actual prestige classes should be things for which you have to pass some kind of entry exam/membership initiation/rite of passage. Hellknights (both types) are an excellent Pathfinder examples, although these pretige classes (especially Signifer) need updates for use with more modern material. The Prestige Paladin of D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Kirthfinder is an example of something that is actually a base class now that SHOULD be a prestige class (as with Hellknights, what religion in their right mind would trust some random worshipper or even priest with their Smiting power, among other things, when they haven't yet proven their loyalty or steadfastness? Same thing for Inquisitor, by the way, although I love the Inquisitor...

Prestige classes with organizational requirements were a terrible idea. They force fluff into mechanics for no reason. They break the moment you try to play in a different sandbox and they almost never have abilities that make sense being restricted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, if there was no multi-classing I'd be out.

I love the idea of changing the direction a character is developing, mid-campaign.

Losing multi classing would dreadfully restrict possibilities. In a ruleset that seems to thrive on combinations and possibilities, I just can't imagine them cutting that out.

Even D&D 5e retains multiclasses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KainPen wrote:
your thinking old system, In a new system you be or new edition, most concepts as all new classes or archetypes much like they are starting to do now So VMC would be best way to focus on building on what we currently have. Multi-classing is a poor option in general in the current system as you end up vastly weaker then most single classes.

Except VCM is far too ridiculously limited in what it can do that is it near useless when it comes to replicating what could be done through multiclassing.

Quote:
It not like it was in 1st and 2nd where multi classing was a powerful options. 3.X was made dependent on it. In pathfinder made single classing the better option as they are more powerful if they stick to one class, which is why it a poor option and it and Prestige Class do not work well. Archetypes, and stacking archetypes, and VMC expands concepts with out hurting the play to much.

VCM is weaker than Multiclassing and ridiculously more limited, they hurt play significantly more. Also, not all classes work with archetypes as well, some classes don't have as many class features and some classes simply are hard to think of concepts that cross over with another class, and even then what about when you want your character to go into a different line of skills than what you decided at 1st level. The rogue might decide he wants to become a wizard, or a fighter might awaken the magic in his blood and become a bloodrager, a ranger might want to become more tied to nature and become a druid. Without multiclassing your damaging the potential for characters to evolve and develop over time.


Also in 1st and 2nd multiclassing was the provenance of nonhuman races only, which made up for the fact that they had hard limits on how high a level they could get to. Stalling out at 11th or 9th level was not great game design.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Also in 1st and 2nd multiclassing was the provenance of nonhuman races only, which made up for the fact that they had hard limits on how high a level they could get to. Stalling out at 11th or 9th level was not great game design.

Er, no. What we now call multiclassing was closer to the old dual classing, which was human only. Demihuman multiclassing is what we now refer to as gestalt.


So yeah, humans had dual classing, which was WILDLY more restrictive, demi humans had multiclassing which often had level caps on the various classes hovering anywhere from 8th to 12th level.

The restrictions on dual classing (dont use your old classes abilities until you outlevel your old class or no encounter exp for you and half adventure exp, you can never go back to your old classes) make it sufficiently different that comparing the two based on the superficial similarities of taking levels in 1 class at a time isn't really justified


Caineach wrote:
Prestige classes with organizational requirements were a terrible idea. They force fluff into mechanics for no reason. They break the moment you try to play in a different sandbox and they almost never have abilities that make sense being restricted.

That's why I suggested 2 types of advanced classes:

Actual Advanced Classes, which are based upon the interaction of training and natural ability, like base classes, but with significantly more entrance requirements;

Prestige Classes, which also have organization-based requirements.

If you tried to make base classes and archetypes to support every concept without multiclassing, you get a combinatorial explosion of classes and archetypes, a problem that we are already seeing. In order to forestall this, you would have to make class features available a-la-carte, like in Mutants & Masterminds. That said, an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds would be awesome, but would require a huge amount of conversion work and a LOT of examples to get people used to the new system, so even if both companies were agreeable to the prospect, it would be hard to pull off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

That's why I suggested 2 types of advanced classes:

Actual Advanced Classes, which are based upon the interaction of training and natural ability, like base classes, but with significantly more entrance requirements;

Prestige Classes, which also have organization-based requirements.

Somewhat like d20 Modern, right? That game had advanced classes that you could typically qualify for after taking three levels in a base class -- so, if you made the optimum choices to qualify for it, you could take your first level of an advanced class at 4th character level.


deinol wrote:
KainPen wrote:
OD&D/AD&D were basically the same game. OD&D came out first, but as things were added, a compilation of sorts was needed. AD&D to me was more a compilation of all the stuff that was out there for OD&D and in essence was the same system, and basically completely compatible in comparison.
You don't think splitting class and race was a huge deal? I mean, yes, from an adventure/monster standpoint, the game was close enough that you could run Basic modules for AD&D. But from a character creation and capabilities standpoint, they were very different games. Much more different than 3.0 and Pathfinder.

Races as classes wasn't a part of OD&D, it didn't come in until the Moldvay B/X sets. And really, I don't think it was as huge a deal as some make it out to be. Back in the day, the group I played with had a wide variety of sourcebooks and core rulebooks, and we played together fine. Some people created their characters using the B/X sets, some using the BECMI sets, some with 1E, and some with 2E. They all played together well.


David knott 242 wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

That's why I suggested 2 types of advanced classes:

Actual Advanced Classes, which are based upon the interaction of training and natural ability, like base classes, but with significantly more entrance requirements;

Prestige Classes, which also have organization-based requirements.

Somewhat like d20 Modern, right? That game had advanced classes that you could typically qualify for after taking three levels in a base class -- so, if you made the optimum choices to qualify for it, you could take your first level of an advanced class at 4th character level.

That's what I was thinking also (although not neceessarily having to take 3 levels of background class = true base class -- more like 1 or 2 for most purposes, unless you are mandated to have more by racial hit dice). I didn't bring it up because I am only slightly familiar with d20 Modern (and the Pathfinder-based d20 Modern conversion seems woefully incomplete, at least judging by the web site linked from www.d20pfsrd.com).

* * * * * * * *

By the way, I'd also like to see a Races Unchained (whether as part of Pathfinder 2.0 or otherwise), to clean up some weirdness in race descriptions (for one thing, the Race Points system is all over the place in terms of rating a race's power; for another, you get weird things like Orcs have a feat to get the Scent ability, but then take a penalty to Wisdom, which needs to be 13 to qualify for the feat, while Sulis get an Intelligence penalty while having a racial Magus archetype that isn't compatible with Eldritch Scion).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point, we should skip to what will happen as soon as a 2nd edition comes out, and start planning Pathfinder 3.0 right now.

So what 2.0 issues should Third Edition fix?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

At this point, we should skip to what will happen as soon as a 2nd edition comes out, and start planning Pathfinder 3.0 right now.

So what 2.0 issues should Third Edition fix?

Mages will obviously need a power boost after being unfairly nerfed to hell in the PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^And what about the Giant Ethereal Pigeon that WotC apparently chickened out of delivering in 4th Edition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It could use a new edition but it NEEDS a singular player base: its already a part of a niche market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh.

At this point I'm looking at a TON of additions through third party material that basically fixes any problem I have with the exception of presentation, (I wonder if it's kosher to reorganize the Core Rulebook with third party solutions added in and print out hard copies for my table...) so all in all I have it just the way I like it and if there is a new edition that isn't compatible then I would definitely not buy it. I spent all that time fixing it, I don't want to have to start over with something new that I'd just have to fix all over again when I already have something that's not broke.


Milo v3 wrote:
KainPen wrote:
your thinking old system, In a new system you be or new edition, most concepts as all new classes or archetypes much like they are starting to do now So VMC would be best way to focus on building on what we currently have. Multi-classing is a poor option in general in the current system as you end up vastly weaker then most single classes.

Except VCM is far too ridiculously limited in what it can do that is it near useless when it comes to replicating what could be done through multiclassing.

Quote:
It not like it was in 1st and 2nd where multi classing was a powerful options. 3.X was made dependent on it. In pathfinder made single classing the better option as they are more powerful if they stick to one class, which is why it a poor option and it and Prestige Class do not work well. Archetypes, and stacking archetypes, and VMC expands concepts with out hurting the play to much.
VCM is weaker than Multiclassing and ridiculously more limited, they hurt play significantly more. Also, not all classes work with archetypes as well, some classes don't have as many class features and some classes simply are hard to think of concepts that cross over with another class, and even then what about when you want your character to go into a different line of skills than what you decided at 1st level. The rogue might decide he wants to become a wizard, or a fighter might awaken the magic in his blood and become a bloodrager, a ranger might want to become more tied to nature and become a druid. Without multiclassing your damaging the potential for characters to evolve and develop over time.

I don't think it is very limited, I think it is open very open especially for a player that has only a few feats that he wants and the rest are just throw away feats. He has a option to maybe make his character more diverse then the normal mold. but it is a new rules and can maybe use some more work over, which would happen when building a new edition. I just list it as possible example of a multiclassing route that could be option.

Doesn't retraining also represent mid game changes, you are talking about. As yoda said you must unlearn what you have learned. as in you example with the rogue become wizard, mid way through the game he realize he could actual be good at this stuff and still be rougeish so what does he do, he retrains all his class levels in to a new class that his a single hybrid class of the two. Say Arcane Trickster that is not a prestige class any more. The concept and idea is still fulled. He still grows in both area. but now instead of having to worry about to class, you only have to worry about 1, and the character would be more powerful because he is a single class at change over. instead of weaker by being 1 level wizard 7 levels rouge. he could have more spells a few new class abilities. more suited to his new role and abilities. Also we talking about a new edition, they could have a system in place for this. For VMA or career change. at mid point in a game.

There is no need to multi-class if there is an archtype or Hybrid/base class that fill every concept. All you need is a system in place to allow player to change to a new option mid game.


KainPen wrote:
I don't think it is very limited, I think it is open very open especially for a player that has only a few feats that he wants and the rest are just throw away feats. He has a option to maybe make his character more diverse then the normal mold. but it is a new rules and can maybe use some more work over, which would happen when building a new edition. I just list it as possible example of a multiclassing route that could be option.

No, it's ridiculously limited, you'd need multiple VMC's for each class to get even close to it not being an iconic example of being limited.

Quote:
Doesn't retraining also represent mid game changes, you are talking about. As yoda said you must unlearn what you have learned. as in you example with the rogue become wizard, mid way through the game he realize he could actual be good at this stuff and still be rougeish so what does he do, he retrains all his class levels in to a new class that his a single hybrid class of the two. Say Arcane Trickster that is not a prestige class any more. The concept and idea is still fulled. He still grows in both area. but now instead of having to worry about to class, you only have to worry about 1, and the character would be more powerful because he is a single class at change over. instead of weaker by being 1 level wizard 7 levels rouge. he could have more spells a few new class abilities. more suited to his new role and abilities. Also we talking about a new edition, they could have a system in place for this. For VMA or career change. at mid point in a game.

Oh god. "Retraining replacing multiclassing", no. When I learn something new, I do not lose all my memories of the old stuff and suddenly learn completely different stuff. Nor do I lose all my memories and suddenly change all of my abilities to some half way point between concepts (concepts that don't even match my character). And what if my concept would require three classes? Do you make a hybrid class for every combination of three classes then? What if my concept would require four classes? Etc. Etc.

Quote:
There is no need to multi-class if there is an archtype or Hybrid/base class that fill every concept. All you need is a system in place to allow player to change to a new option mid game.

Except it's ridiculous to think that archetype and classes will be enough to cover every concept, a lot of classes don't make much sense to mix and to be worth being a class or archetype you need a concise flavour.


TBH, I don't want a 2nd edition, but I'd like an update, similar to how 3e became 3.5e.

Here are my corrections:
- Replace prestige classes with archetypes; No seriously, we've seeing less and less of these. Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures didn't even feature prestige classes. Ever since archetypes have been introduced, those have become obsolete. Why would you spend up to 10 levels in a class to often get a prestige class that doesn't augment your base class's feature to a respectable level? Multiclassing is often required to a ridiculous degree. So yeah, out with prestige classes and in with archetypes.

- Scalable feats; For instance, Two-Weapon Fighting should ONE feat that scales in power with levels and appropriate requirements, NOT 3 separate feats. Same goes with every single feat tree that has Improved and Greater upgrades.

- "Unchained" Fighter; While I do praise the Weapon Master's Handbook for FINALLY giving more options for fighters, it lacks a "special power". Right now, it's too gear-dependant and its features barely elevate this. No fighter is going to use one weapon per group he selects, as it usually has a melee weapon, a ranged weapon and possibly a backup weapon... that's it. You know the maneuvers that Tome of Battle added? Give the fighter those ON TOP of its current features.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Replace prestige classes with archetypes; No seriously, we've seeing less and less of these. Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures didn't even feature prestige classes. Ever since archetypes have been introduced, those have become obsolete. Why would you spend up to 10 levels in a class to often get a prestige class that doesn't augment your base class's feature to a respectable level? Multiclassing is often required to a ridiculous degree. So yeah, out with prestige classes and in with archetypes.

I see this as a problem with bad prestige classes, not a problem with prestige classes.

I think that (and I know I've lost this argument as far as Paizo is concerned before I even make it) PrC's have a very distinct place in the game that archetypes cannot fill. The biggest differences being (1) I can choose exactly when to get in which gives me control over the class features I want to give up. (2) I can choose exactly when to get out so I can take 1, 3, 7, or 10 levels and get exactly what I'm after. (3) I don't have to be a wizard to play casting PrC X, but I DO have to be a wizard to take a wizard archetype.


pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition?

There's this company called Wizards of the Coast you might be interested in. They create new editions of D&D every 5 years, so this might be your thing.

As someone who actually pays for every book and resource, this is not my thing.

If Paizo makes another edition of Pathfinder before the 10 year mark, I'm just going to find another hobby.

I'm more than happy with all new rulebooks being optional (like APG, Unchained). It's like beta-testing the next edition. But it's soft, because it's optional. It gives me time to read it without pushing it down my throat. That's what I like.


BigDTBone wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Replace prestige classes with archetypes; No seriously, we've seeing less and less of these. Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures didn't even feature prestige classes. Ever since archetypes have been introduced, those have become obsolete. Why would you spend up to 10 levels in a class to often get a prestige class that doesn't augment your base class's feature to a respectable level? Multiclassing is often required to a ridiculous degree. So yeah, out with prestige classes and in with archetypes.

I see this as a problem with bad prestige classes, not a problem with prestige classes.

I think that (and I know I've lost this argument as far as Paizo is concerned before I even make it) PrC's have a very distinct place in the game that archetypes cannot fill. The biggest differences being (1) I can choose exactly when to get in which gives me control over the class features I want to give up. (2) I can choose exactly when to get out so I can take 1, 3, 7, or 10 levels and get exactly what I'm after. (3) I don't have to be a wizard to play casting PrC X, but I DO have to be a wizard to take a wizard archetype.

Dude, all prestige classes can be turned into archetypes:

Arcane Archer: Magus
Arcane Trickster: Bard or Magus
Assassin: Rogue, Ninja or Slayer
Dragon Disciple: Sorcerer or Blood Rager
Duelist: Swashbuckler
Eldritch Knight: Magus
Loremaster: Bard or Wizard
Mystic Theurge: Arcanist or Oracle
Pathfinder Chronicler: Bard
Shadowdancer: Bard
Battle Herald: Cavalier
Holy Vindicator: Cleric or Warpriest
Horizon Walker: Druid or Ranger
Master Chymist: Alchemist
Master Spy: Rogue
Nature Warden: Druid, Ranger or Hunter
Rage Prophet: Warpriest or Blood Rager
Stalwart Defender: Fighter

As time went on, the archetypes filled many niches for characters. I'm sorry, but even if you can control how you level with prestige classes, they have more restrictions and often lead to one-trick ponies...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Replace prestige classes with archetypes; No seriously, we've seeing less and less of these. Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures didn't even feature prestige classes. Ever since archetypes have been introduced, those have become obsolete. Why would you spend up to 10 levels in a class to often get a prestige class that doesn't augment your base class's feature to a respectable level? Multiclassing is often required to a ridiculous degree. So yeah, out with prestige classes and in with archetypes.

I see this as a problem with bad prestige classes, not a problem with prestige classes.

I think that (and I know I've lost this argument as far as Paizo is concerned before I even make it) PrC's have a very distinct place in the game that archetypes cannot fill. The biggest differences being (1) I can choose exactly when to get in which gives me control over the class features I want to give up. (2) I can choose exactly when to get out so I can take 1, 3, 7, or 10 levels and get exactly what I'm after. (3) I don't have to be a wizard to play casting PrC X, but I DO have to be a wizard to take a wizard archetype.

Dude, all prestige classes can be turned into archetypes:

Arcane Archer: Magus
Arcane Trickster: Bard or Magus
Assassin: Rogue, Ninja or Slayer
Dragon Disciple: Sorcerer or Blood Rager
Duelist: Swashbuckler
Eldritch Knight: Magus
Loremaster: Bard or Wizard
Mystic Theurge: Arcanist or Oracle
Pathfinder Chronicler: Bard
Shadowdancer: Bard
Battle Herald: Cavalier
Holy Vindicator: Cleric or Warpriest
Horizon Walker: Druid or Ranger
Master Chymist: Alchemist
Master Spy: Rogue
Nature Warden: Druid, Ranger or Hunter
Rage Prophet: Warpriest or Blood Rager
Stalwart Defender: Fighter

As time went on, the archetypes filled many niches for characters. I'm sorry, but...

Yes, I know you can make PrC's as restrictive as archetypes. My point is that I want the flexible options and that archetypes are not flexible. As in, I can't take a wizard archetype if I'm a sorcerer. And I can't pick and choose the option swaps because archetypes are all-or-nothing. Ie, if dragon disciple was an archetype then you couldn't take it as a blood rager, but you listed it on your options. That flexibility is lost if you only publish archetypes and I think that is a bad thing.

So giving me a list about making flexible options into rigid choices doesn't exactly persuade me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The difference being that with a Prestige Class like Arcane Archer you can choose at you discretion if you want to be a prepared int caster, a spontaneous chaone, or a half/half hybrid. With archetypes, you would need 3 different one just for this basic variations.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Pathfinder 2.0 will not magically fix the game. I have found that most the issues with Pathfinder are either over/underpowered item (feat, class, spells, etc) or features inherent to the d20 system (HP, Armor Class, BAB/Iterative Attacks, Levels)

The first set is easily changed though excluding or replacing specific items that "break" the game (as per house rules) So any 2.0 would just be a reset on what is "CORE"

The second set is and always be a problem with d20.

Levels 1 to 3 you are too-weak. (it is kind of fun to play from origin, but I have found levels 1 to 3 not being able to be heroic)

Levels 4 to 11 are "balanced." Each character has at least one good trick, but said trick does not outshine the rest of the party and everyone has a useful trick.

Level 11+ things get crazy. At this point there is a wide range of potential power that characters can have. And it is very easy to have one character outshine the rest of the party, unless everyone "plays at the same level of optimization."

This has been a problem since the first days of DnD. And IMO, the issue with any Level based system. (It can still be an issue with class-less systems, but it presents itself in a different way)

Now, I don't want PF to become a classes/leveless system. I have plenty of those. And I can easily use one of those systems to play in Golarion.

Outside a few tweaks in the core rules (like make unchained rogue the core rogue) I don't see much need for 2.0


BigDTBone wrote:

Yes, I know you can make PrC's as restrictive as archetypes. My point is that I want the flexible options and that archetypes are not flexible. As in, I can't take a wizard archetype if I'm a sorcerer. And I can't pick and choose the option swaps because archetypes are all-or-nothing. Ie, if dragon disciple was an archetype then you couldn't take it as a blood rager, but you listed it on your options. That flexibility is lost if you only publish archetypes and I think that is a bad thing.

So giving me a list about making flexible options into rigid choices doesn't exactly persuade me.

I actually listed multiple classes as possible choices to give the archetype to; only one class would get the prestige (pun intended :P) to receive it as an archetype, but even then, variant could be made, such as a Draconic Disciple archetype for the Sorcerer and a Draconic Savage archetype for the Blood Rager.

My major problem with prestige classes is that they often don't increase any of the classes you decided to pick as a base, hence sort of leading you to pick a class which abilities will be decently increased. You can be a Monk/Assassin... but a Rogue/Assassin fits better since the Assassin's enhances your Sneak Attack for instance. A Fighter/Stalwart Defender doesn't improve Weapon Training or Bravery, just like a Pathfinder Chronicler doesn't get you a reduced spellcasting progression.

Another problem I have is about the requirements, such as...
- Shadowdancer requiring ranks in Perform (Dance), when this skill isn't even used mecanically.
- Battle Herald needing both Challenge and inspire courage class features, when Bard and Cavalier look like the oddest multiclassing option ever.
- Eldritch Knight needing to be proficient with all martial weapons, basically limiting your classes... when they could have gone for "proficient with one martial weapon".

Finally, while you can PrCs in player companions and campaign setting booklets, they stopped adding them in core rulebooks.


I'd rather see the core rulebook line prestige classes transformed into full 20 level classes. Some of them occupy unique thematic niches (Mystic Theurge, Master Spy, Arcane Trickster, etc) that really should be available from level one.

Some 3pp have already done so...I think Mystic theurge was turned into an entire class by Kobold Press.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Prestige classes have a role to play in D&D/Pathfinder (of letting you build upon achievements to set yourself apart from those who just go single-classed), although unfortunately they haven't been kept within this role very well.

JiCi wrote:
Dude, all prestige classes can be turned into archetypes:

Some prestige classes can be turned into archetypes without losing much.

JiCi wrote:
Arcane Archer: Magus

Eldritch Archer Magus is the easier alternative to Arcane Archer, but doesn't do everything that Arcan Archer does, and gets some criticism on these messageboards for being overpowered in other ways. But Arcane Archer doesn't necessarily have to have prestige in it (see earlier post), so tweaks (including some new Magus Arcana to replicate missing Arcane Archer abilities) might be in order.

JiCi wrote:
Arcane Trickster: Bard or Magus

Right now, these don't really do what Arcane Trickster does, so Arcane Trickster still has a place, and has even become viable again with the release of Accomplished Sneak Attacker and VMC Rogue. That said, I have been toying with the idea of reformulating the 6 level arcane spellcasters into a family of spellcasters focused upon the different arcane schools:

Abjuration: Spellbreaker (new class -- needs a different name to avoid getting sued by Blizzard Entertainment)
Conjuration: Summoner (existing class tweaked, and with at least one prepared casting archetype added; also add a Thaumaturgist divine archetype, while we're at it)
Divination: Seer (new Bard-like class focused on Divination)
Enchantment: Bard (existing class almost unchanged, but add a prepared casting archetype)
Evocation: Magus (existing class almost unchanged, but fix the Eldritch Scion archetype and a few other things)
Illusion: Arcane Trickster (new Magus/Bard hybrid base class that has the abilities of the prestige class)
Necromancy: Deathblade (new class, like Magus but Necromancy-focused, and including its own Hexcrafter archetype; needs a better name)
Transmutation: Metamorphist (new class, like Magus but Transmutation-focused; needs a better name)

JiCi wrote:
Assassin: Rogue, Ninja or Slayer

I'll give you that one.

JiCi wrote:
Dragon Disciple: Sorcerer or Blood Rager

But Dragon Disciple is made to advance Sorcerer class features, beyond just the spellcasting, and it does seem to be the kind of class that should have prestige in it, although unfortunately this seems to be regularly ignored.

JiCi wrote:
Duelist: Swashbuckler

I'll give you that one, for the most part. Also Aldori Swordlord Fighter archetype -- but that has its own prestige class (confusingly of the same name) to go with it.

JiCi wrote:
Eldritch Knight: Magus

Partial. If you want a battlefield controller, Magus is rather thin on this, although an archetype of Magus that adds in more battlefield control spells and the ability to work well with two-handed weapons might be in order.

JiCi wrote:
Loremaster: Bard or Wizard

Loremaster was a cool concept, and was pretty good in D&D 3.5, but unfortunately the Pathfinder version was hardly (not at all?) Updated, and again the prestige part of the class got ignored, so this is in need of an update.

Oracle/Shaman with the Lore Mystery/Spirit is another alternative.

JiCi wrote:
Mystic Theurge: Arcanist or Oracle

Arcanist? Cool in its own right, but not much of a substitute for this (except for Unlettered Arcanist -- see Witch below). Certain Oracle archetype/Mystery combinations? A bit better, but still not really giving the mix. Shaman with certain Spirit choices? Maybe, partially. Witch (and Unlettered Arcanist)? Probably the closest alternative we have right now, due to the hybrid spell list. Would still be nice to revive Mystic Theurge.

JiCi wrote:
Pathfinder Chronicler: Bard

This class actually has some prestige in its name, and enough hint of prestige built into the description that it (and the other "Pathfinder {whatever}" (and confusingly named Student of War) prestige classes should stay as prestige classes, although they may need tweaking to bring them up to date with modern material.

JiCi wrote:
Shadowdancer: Bard

Uh . . . How does a Bard replicate most of the Shadowdancer's abilities? Unfortunately, this prestige class had some design flaws (like no Sneak Attack) inherited from D&D 3.5, and the prestige part of it seems to be regularly overlooked and forgotten about.

JiCi wrote:
Battle Herald: Cavalier

I'll give you that -- we need a Battle Herald Cavalier archetype, but the prestige class still has a potential role to play in the achievement/prestige aspect of the class. Maybe we can get a Battle Herald Cavalier archetype and keep the prestige class, like we have Aldori Swordlord Fighter archetype and prestige class?

JiCi wrote:
Holy Vindicator: Cleric or Warpriest

If you want to ignore prestige aspects of the prestige class, maybe so. But otherwise, a prestige class is in order. Not only that, but Paladin should be converted from a base class into a prestige class, following the example of Hellknights and Kirthfinder's Prestige Paladin (and D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana's Prestige Paladin).

By the way, Hellknights (both types) are examples of prestige classes that have prestige in them, and they really need to be kept as prestige classes (although tweaked to fit well with more recently released material), even though it would also be good to introduce Hellknight Armiger archetypes (and/or more generally available archetypes well suited to being an Armiger) of several base classes to fit with them -- particularly but not limited to Cavalier, Cleric, Inquisitor, Investigator, Magus, Slayer, and Wizard; some classes already have archetypes well suited for this, such as Paladin with Oath Against Chaos (although Paladin should be a prestige class anyway); some classes have enough feats that they do not particularly need an archetype for this, such as Fighter and Warpriest; while a few classes just dont thematically fit, such as Barbarian, Bard, Monk, and Skald.

JiCi wrote:

Horizon Walker: Druid or Ranger

Master Chymist: Alchemist

I'll give you those.

JiCi wrote:

Master Spy: Rogue

Nature Warden: Druid, Ranger or Hunter

Again, if you want to ignore prestige aspects of the prestige classes, sure. But otherwise, a prestige class is in order.

JiCi wrote:
Rage Prophet: Warpriest or Blood Rager

No -- Rage Prophet is a blend of Barbarian and Oracle. That said, this one should be a base class (and the existing prestige class has a serious design flaw, that it doesn't progress your Rage). Bloodrager could be used as a guide in design, but a new hybrid class is really needed.

JiCi wrote:
Stalwart Defender: Fighter

An archetype of Fighter or maybe an alternate class of Barbarian might be in order. But you need to make hit dice and Base Save Bonuses fair game for replacement by archetypes and alternate classes. Alternatively, a case could be made for a prestige requirement being fitting for this, but if kept as a prestige class, an update is needed to fit well with more recently released material


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Prestige classes have a role to play in D&D/Pathfinder (of letting you build upon achievements to set yourself apart from those who just go single-classed), although unfortunately they haven't been kept within this role very well.

Well, if that's the case, they need to be brought by the drawing board. Sure, not every PrC would work as an archetype, but a lot would...

The problem is that the prestige aspect, as you stated, got either deluded or outright forgotten...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Prestige classes have a role to play in D&D/Pathfinder (of letting you build upon achievements to set yourself apart from those who just go single-classed), although unfortunately they haven't been kept within this role very well.

Well, if that's the case, they need to be brought by the drawing board. Sure, not every PrC would work as an archetype, but a lot would...

The problem is that the prestige aspect, as you stated, got either deluded or outright forgotten...

The prestige aspect seems hard to do in a setting neutral book. Things like Aldori Swordlord or Hellknight make sense as prestige classes, because they are built into the setting and imply membership of organizations.

It's pretty much why prestige classes have been restricted to campaign setting books of late, and not the rules line.


I'll put my 2c here. I hate campaing/setting specific rules.

If you are someone like me who homebrews almost all settings, it really puts a screw in the actuall usability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do a lot of home brewing and just sand the names off of campaign/setting specific material or rules if I decide to use them. If the ideas are good, changing a bit of descriptive text here and there is worth the energy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess my thoughts are that...if a prestige class is meant to model a specific niche or character concept, it should be restricted in use to concepts that only make sense in later phases of the game. Things like divine raging or casters that blend divine and arcane magic seem like things that a class could just start off with at level one. You shouldn't have to wait 5+ levels to play the concept you want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What I like, would updated version of main books with streamlined rules of different abilities which have came around. As there are atleast 4 different set of rules for using more than one type of 'weapon' or getting more attacks.

Lets see

Weapon in either hand
Natural attacks
Flurries
Casting spell as one of attack
Haste
...something else?

I would love go one set of universal non-puzzling rules for these, without multitude exceptions of exceptions of exceptions. I don't won't to set everything identical, just build them on same ground or better, have the rules on same page.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Prestige classes with organizational requirements were a terrible idea. They force fluff into mechanics for no reason. They break the moment you try to play in a different sandbox and they almost never have abilities that make sense being restricted.

That's why I suggested 2 types of advanced classes:

Actual Advanced Classes, which are based upon the interaction of training and natural ability, like base classes, but with significantly more entrance requirements;

Prestige Classes, which also have organization-based requirements.

If you tried to make base classes and archetypes to support every concept without multiclassing, you get a combinatorial explosion of classes and archetypes, a problem that we are already seeing. In order to forestall this, you would have to make class features available a-la-carte, like in Mutants & Masterminds. That said, an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds would be awesome, but would require a huge amount of conversion work and a LOT of examples to get people used to the new system, so even if both companies were agreeable to the prospect, it would be hard to pull off.

Not to derail the thread, but base classes or a-la-carte is a false dichotomy. One third option could function similar to mythic, where you have layers of level tracking that deal with different things. Some of those things might be themes or just mechanics that fit into different types of games.

I could easily imagine "archetypes" in this system covering high magic or low magic games, games of intrigue, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^And with that, I would certainly be up for having base class abilities be available more a-la-carte. Think unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants and Masterminds. Awful lot of initial investment work, though.

Short of that, Mythic could work as a sort of very vague example of achievement/prestige-based advancement. Once you get beyond the vagueness, though, it really needs to be put together better than actual Mythic Rules, though -- even just looking at those things, I could see that they are broken, especially when comparing Mythic PC abilities to what the few examples of (even quite high level) Mythic monsters that I looked at (with the exceptions being built like PCs instead of traditional monsters).

Another idea I have been toying with is Prestige Feat Chains -- sort of like the existing Variant Multiclassing, but starting a bit later and preferably made more like the good examples of Variant Multiclassing (Fighter, Magus, Wizard) than the bad examples (Gunslinger, Monk, Witch).


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^And with that, I would certainly be up for having base class abilities be available more a-la-carte. Think unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants and Masterminds. Awful lot of initial investment work, though.

Short of that, Mythic could work as a sort of very vague example of achievement/prestige-based advancement. Once you get beyond the vagueness, though, it really needs to be put together better than actual Mythic Rules, though -- even just looking at those things, I could see that they are broken, especially when comparing Mythic PC abilities to what the few examples of (even quite high level) Mythic monsters that I looked at (with the exceptions being built like PCs instead of traditional monsters).

Another idea I have been toying with is Prestige Feat Chains -- sort of like the existing Variant Multiclassing, but starting a bit later and preferably made more like the good examples of Variant Multiclassing (Fighter, Magus, Wizard) than the bad examples (Gunslinger, Monk, Witch).

This could work if you compressed combat and skill feats so that combat and skill classes were not as badly impacted by the reduced number of feats available.

I would also take feats like power attached k and add them to the base combat mechanics rather than making them required feats.


roysier wrote:

When it comes to an issue of Paizo losing money and has to lay off staff or come up with a 2nd edition to boost sales, I guarantee there will be a 2nd edition at some point. Its probably at least 2 years out, but 5e out sells Pathfinder in most local games stores so there will be a breaking point at some time.

Too be honest it looks to me Paizo is running out of sales ideas. The early books everyone in my game group bought, that would be 6 copies of each book, but by bestiary 4 & 5 by group had no interest, inner race guide, also no interest, the strategy guide sits as my local game store without a single copy purchased, so now my local game store only stocks 1 book instead of the before 3 books. I have only seen the Inner Sea Race Guide in 1 of the 6 games stores I frequent. The stores simply didn't stock it.

Don't forget that Pathfinder can be found on it's own website, which is where it sells most of it's products, other online outlets such as Amazon, and brick and mortar shops.

5th edition D&D is only sold on Amazon and shops. There is only one AL store in my whole country while there are tons of shops involved in Pathfinder Society.


MMCJawa wrote:
JiCi wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Prestige classes have a role to play in D&D/Pathfinder (of letting you build upon achievements to set yourself apart from those who just go single-classed), although unfortunately they haven't been kept within this role very well.

Well, if that's the case, they need to be brought by the drawing board. Sure, not every PrC would work as an archetype, but a lot would...

The problem is that the prestige aspect, as you stated, got either deluded or outright forgotten...

The prestige aspect seems hard to do in a setting neutral book. Things like Aldori Swordlord or Hellknight make sense as prestige classes, because they are built into the setting and imply membership of organizations.

It's pretty much why prestige classes have been restricted to campaign setting books of late, and not the rules line.

I wouldn't call PrCs "campaign exclusive". If lore/connections can't be established, mecanics can be worked with. A Swordlord is a swashbuckler archetype and a Hell Knight is a cavalier/paladin archetype. The Red Mantis Assassin got a "variant archetype" as the Mantis Zealot archetype for warpriests.

I do get your point though. However, in this case, prestige classes should be reserved for organizations only, which in this case, many PrCs should be turned into archetypes due to the lack of connections. Technically, if the PrC doesn't have a requirement related to being part of the organization, then it should be worked into an archetype.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
JiCi wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Prestige classes have a role to play in D&D/Pathfinder (of letting you build upon achievements to set yourself apart from those who just go single-classed), although unfortunately they haven't been kept within this role very well.

Well, if that's the case, they need to be brought by the drawing board. Sure, not every PrC would work as an archetype, but a lot would...

The problem is that the prestige aspect, as you stated, got either deluded or outright forgotten...

The prestige aspect seems hard to do in a setting neutral book. Things like Aldori Swordlord or Hellknight make sense as prestige classes, because they are built into the setting and imply membership of organizations.

It's pretty much why prestige classes have been restricted to campaign setting books of late, and not the rules line.

I wouldn't call PrCs "campaign exclusive". If lore/connections can't be established, mecanics can be worked with. A Swordlord is a swashbuckler archetype and a Hell Knight is a cavalier/paladin archetype. The Red Mantis Assassin got a "variant archetype" as the Mantis Zealot archetype for warpriests.

I do get your point though. However, in this case, prestige classes should be reserved for organizations only, which in this case, many PrCs should be turned into archetypes due to the lack of connections. Technically, if the PrC doesn't have a requirement related to being part of the organization, then it should be worked into an archetype.

I like prestige classes as their own thing because they allow for organic character growth as a campaign progresses. A PC who wants to have an archetype has to pick it up in the first few levels, but a 10th level character who suddenly learns about a secret society (or who suddenly discovers that he has draconic ancestry, et cetera) he wants to become part of can shift over to a prestige class. It's another option in a game filled with options, and I like that there are enough choices for people to pick and choose what works best for them.

That said, I do think I'd leave them out of the core books if I were deciding what stays and what goes in a 2nd edition. Then again, I'd probably leave archetypes out of the core books, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is it the only reason for a new edition is because of splat books?

That's a terrible reason.

Why?

Because splat books and other "extras" are just that...OPTIONAL!

If the core system works fine, and you're having fun, what exactly is so wrong with it that you have to go to a NEW edition?

If you stick to core only, you're fine.

If the game, after a few years, needs some more "fire" as we'll call it, then add in "Advanced Player's Guide." and maybe one other splat to help (like a Player Companion or two).

If, after a few years, it begins to get dry again, add Advanced Class Guide or maybe run an Occult themed or Mythic style campaign.

Seriously, the whole "There's too much material time to reset!" is utter garbage and nonsensical. Come up with a much better reason.

101 to 150 of 611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.