What's better?
- Picking a prestige class that often halts your current base class progression, that often doesn't compliment your base class and that requires specific things that doesn't mesh well with your base class.
- Picking an archetype that compliments your base class, that doesn't require anything from your part and keeps on leveling your base class's features.
Look, some PrCs can be useful to represent an organisation or a very specific ability, but most of the time, especially WITH the introduction of archetypes, a lot of PrCs could be transformed INTO archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would really like to see, essentially, is a VMC approach to prestige classes. That is, you qualify by meeting certain criteria like a traditional prestige class, and you continue to level your base class but you give up some number of your remaining feats in order to gain abilities from the prestige class.
I think that would be a better approach to handling PrCs than the holdover from 3.5. It would certainly be more compatible with Pathfinder's current philosophy regarding class building, since you'd still get your level 7 abilities at level 7.
Winter Witch is mandatory for Winter Witch-archetyped witches, which are the only ones that can take it. The decision on taking the archetype is a different one, but once that decision is made, not taking the prestige class is suboptimal.
So you are saying that taking the PrC is mandatory, but only for the very specific type of character for which it is thematically and mechanically appropriate....?
So, not mandatory at all to play a Witch, in other words. And even for a Winter Witch (archetype) character, it isn't mandatory, though it is advantageous. A Winter Witch (archetype) without the PrC isn't any worse off than any other element-focused caster. That is exactly how PrC should work.
I agree that alot of PrC are unneeded, or need an overhaul. Arcane Archer can basically be replaced with Eldritch Archer Magus. Slayer works better than Assassin.
But there are concepts that can't/shouldn't be able to be modeled from lvl 1 (IMO). A Warlord PrC to represent the shifting from a personal combatant to a commander of men makes sense to me, since it doesn't make sense that a 1st level character would be a war leader. But they do need to be better designed to mesh with the design philosophy of the rest of the class system in the game.
A Winter Witch (archetype) that doesn't take the prestige class is worse than one that does
Yes, being a level ahead in spellcasting and having 3 hexes that aren't chosen for you is obviously worse.
Other than some organizations that it doesn't make sense for lvl 1 characters to be a part of, why are prestige classes still needed when you have archetypes and all the other customization options that exist in pathfinder?
Other than some organizations that it doesn't make sense for lvl 1 characters to be a part of, why are prestige classes still needed when you have archetypes and all the other customization options that exist in pathfinder?
I think part of the appeal of PrCs is for emergent character development. Perhaps narrative events get you to change who you are or what you're concerned with, and you reflect this by making a choice to specialize in whatever the PrC specializes in.
You could easily replace this with a set of archetypes that don't need to be taken at level 1 and don't do anything until level 6+ though.
Other than some organizations that it doesn't make sense for lvl 1 characters to be a part of, why are prestige classes still needed when you have archetypes and all the other customization options that exist in pathfinder?I think part of the appeal of PrCs is for emergent character development. Perhaps narrative events get you to change who you are or what you're concerned with, and you reflect this by making a choice to specialize in whatever the PrC specializes in.
You could easily replace this with a set of archetypes that don't need to be taken at level 1 and don't do anything until level 6+ though.
Or multiclass if there is no achetype for your class.
I have never understood why people expect some prestige classes to basically be a base class+. Take eldrich knight for example, they want it to have the same spell progression as 9th level casters but also gain all this combat ability on top of that. Or mystic theurge that sacrifices spell power for having lots of spells and a huge list to draw from.
I've actually been planning a character for a while that fits Pain Taster really well. It's thematic and has som cool abilities.
I think PrC's can be super awesome if used at the right time in a characters development, be it for joining an organization or having a pivotal life changing experience that doesn't fit what would be gained by simply multiclassing.
Other than some organizations that it doesn't make sense for lvl 1 characters to be a part of, why are prestige classes still needed when you have archetypes and all the other customization options that exist in pathfinder?
Because Magus archetypes aren't available to Bards, that's why. Prestige classes let me pursue abilities from any base class or combination of base classes, and have less compatibility issues that let me pick my class features a la cart if no existing archetype hits the concept on the head.
To be fair, while many PrC's could be archetypes, most archetypes should be nothing more then feat chains...and this was true of PrC's in 3.5, as well. It's just when you write a PrC out as a feat chain, you see how horribly overpowered they are.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other big thing that hasn't come up yet is that sometimes monsters can qualify for prestige classes without needing to take any (or far fewer at any rate) levels in a base class, and that's a niche that's worth filling. When you haven't got a base class to be committed to in the first place, prestige classes are usually a better choice. I'm actually sort of disappointed that there haven't been more prestige classes designed with monsters in mind.
I happen to really like PRCs so I am going to have to say no to the OP
considering Hell's Vengeance I can't wait to play a hellborn tiefling inquisitor of Asmodeus with levels in the spellcasting version of the Hellknight prc
I love prestige classes anything that helps me make a character my own I love that's why I couldn't stand 4th.ed . To me it seems like Pazio over corrects things one a very few complains with them. They did this with Rouges and Clerics from 3.5 and Prestige class basically only making a handful and it seems like overly weak ones at that. It seems like their three types the ones that add to a class like for the most part Assassin, Shadow dancer and Holy Vindactor. Then their the organization one like the guild poisoner. I would like to see them the first style not lose the level 20 bonuses(how many times do you really hit level 20 most of the time you die or have to multi class just to get there) like the dragon dicple
And maybe for the other balance them out to equal the core classes Wich might be tricky. The other thing I find fun with them is most complaints I here is there either overpowered or under power like to see a little balance. Just some of my thoughts on the subject
One thing I wonder is if PrC's represent organizations, how do they know how many ranks I have in a skill? How do they know I have X feat? Can I join the organization without the PrC? Why is it impossible for me to gain the talents in other ways? Why should I add x group to my campaign setting out of nowhere?
One thing I wonder is if PrC's represent organizations, how do they know how many ranks I have in a skill? How do they know I have X feat? Can I join the organization without the PrC? Why is it impossible for me to gain the talents in other ways? Why should I add x group to my campaign setting out of nowhere?
that's between the DM and you on how they know that
It's also sort of weird that "joining a club" would mean that you end up less good at being, say, a wizard Sure, the activities of the organization might get in the way of your mystical studies, but all that time wizards spend adventuring isn't being spent studying either, so if a wizard can acquire enough experience in the magical arts to advance in power by fighting a whole lot of mummies and not reading a single book, why do club activities preclude the wizard from similarly gaining in magical power.
It makes total sense for there to be organizations that offer secret wisdom or special training to members, it doesn't really make sense that this training always requires you to slack on your other interests and that everybody else in the club receives the exact same training.
that's between the DM and you on how they know that
Except as GM, I could never figureout an explaination on how they'd know a PC's stats on their character sheet without some ridiculous metagaming magic item. Say the prerequisite is skill rank 5, and the character has 4 ranks, but a +10 racial bonus to the skill... Meaning they're better at that skill than they need to be, but it doesn't matter because the specific ranks are the only important thing. How do they know what a person's BAB is, when there are so many ways an individual can modify their attack rolls?
It's friggin metagamey as all hell if organizations can read your character sheet.
The feat/stat requirements always seemed like a way to abstract "you must complete this series of tasks to prove yourself worthy to join our order" except that *actually roleplaying that* would be way more interesting than ticking the right boxes when you level up (and by actually running the various trials you would give players the ability to figure out alternative solutions that are more interesting than just "know about stuff.")
It seems like if the goal is to prevent people from taking them before level 6, it would be better to just have one of the requirements be "five or more character levels". You can rationalize it by saying your level is tied to your reputation, and the club of important people doesn't care about you before they know who you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's between the DM and you on how they know thatExcept as GM, I could never figureout an explaination on how they'd know a PC's stats on their character sheet without some ridiculous metagaming magic item. Say the prerequisite is skill rank 5, and the character has 4 ranks, but a +10 racial bonus to the skill... Meaning they're better at that skill than they need to be, but it doesn't matter because the specific ranks are the only important thing. How do they know what a person's BAB is, when there are so many ways an individual can modify their attack rolls?
It's friggin metagamey as all hell if organizations can read your character sheet.
How does a magic spell know you've got an Int of 15 and can learn it? Shouldn't your ranks in Arcane Knowledge and/or Spellcraft be sufficient to learn it with an Int of 14?
What about Power Attack? How does the feat know you've got a 13 str? If you're wearing muleback cords and can lift an elephant, how would it know?
i.e. pre reqs for a PrC are no different then any other kind of pre-reqs.
==Aelryinth
They're designed so that you can't access them before 6th level, although that is not an explicit requirement, it's an implicit one.
Some of the prerequisites depend on you having certain abilities. Other ones are just feat taxes, probably to prevent you from PRC-hopping like a rabid munchkin.
I know this already and I fail to see the relevance to my post. Could you expand on this to show the link between what I'm saying and this?
How does a magic spell know you've got an Int of 15 and can learn it? Shouldn't your ranks in Arcane Knowledge and/or Spellcraft be sufficient to learn it with an Int of 14?
Considering increasing your intelligence magically does count for prerequisites and casting spells, that is a horrible example.
What about Power Attack? How does the feat know you've got a 13 str? If you're wearing muleback cords and can lift an elephant, how would it know?
Thing is, this is a mechanic of the game having prerequisites, which is different from "An organization in the setting." This isn't a mechanical abstraction saying you need a certain amount of another mechanical abstraction, if they represent organizations, then it's people in the setting magically knowing the details of an individuals stats despite the fact it's mechanical abstraction, and not even caring about the result. You might need to have 5 ranks worth of knowledge (nature), and yet the people in the setting don't care if your Knowledge (Nature) modifier is +10 and higher than some random who can enter with a +3 modifier, they wont let you in with 4 Knowledge (nature) ranks.
6th level is an arbitrary distinction, same as a certain strength number or a certain number of skill ranks. At some point, you have to live with the arbitrary distinctions, because very little will make sense otherwise. It's a bit metagamey to know your skill ranks, but it's also metagamey to know levels. Skill ranks are indicative of a minimum number of class levels, class levels are indicative of power, and PRCs are balanced for certain power levels.
Still not sure what that has to do with my post. I'm saying, PrC's prerequisites are nearly all arbitrary mechanical distinctions, which clashes with the fact that people in the setting are meant to be deciding whether or not you meet the prerequisites, individuals who cannot see the components that leads to the resulting skill and talents of a character, but that decision is still being made on components rather than the results. I'm fine with PrC's having prerequisites that enforce "You have to be x level to ride". I'm against them representing organizations.
I suppose if you wanted to rationalize how the skill ranks thing works, you could say that recruiters from organization X have been watching you/listening to rumors about you, and know that you've been clocking a bunch of hours at the library, studying Knowledge (geography), or that you've been taking Perform (dance) lessons in your spare time.
And why would that reflect the ranks rather than modifier?
In short, requirements are for balance reasons.
I know. I've already said that I was already aware of this and agreed. Please stop repeating this, it's getting annoying.
The game is part mechanics and part flavor, and flavor was not the first thing in mind when Pathfinder was split from 3.5E.
Yes. The issue is that I don't think that the flavour they assigned to these mechanics was a good idea since it clashes with the mechanics.
stats represent how innately skilled you are. No?
Yes. "Stats" do, but not ranks on their own, when things like racial modifiers and bonuses from classes exist.
Thing is, this is a mechanic of the game having prerequisites, which is different from "An organization in the setting."
But the Prestige class itself is also a mechanic of the game.
I understand where you are coming from, but as a class is a mechanical element of the game, it will draw on other mechanics of the game.
They could have designed the prereqs to be based on total skill modifiers (a mechanic representing sum proficiency with the skill), but making it depend purely on ranks allows them to also set a level limit for entry.
There are alternate mechanics presented to represent membership in organizations beside PrC, like the Faction rules.
But the Prestige class itself is also a mechanic of the game.
Yep. But simply being a mechanic isn't enough justification for clashing with it's flavour.
I understand where you are coming from, but as a class is a mechanical element of the game, it will draw on other mechanics of the game.
Yep.
They could have designed the prereqs to be based on total skill modifiers (a mechanic representing sum proficiency with the skill), but making it depend purely on ranks allows them to also set a level limit for entry.
I'm aware.
There are alternate mechanics presented to represent membership in organizations beside PrC, like the Faction rules.
I definitely prefer them.
Well, flavor assigned to mechanics has been around since 3.5E, so we'll have to deal with relics of that unless you houserule them out.
I'm not against flavour assigned to mechanics, just flavour being assigned to mechanics that it does not accurately represent. It's like if you gave the fighter class the flavour of the druid.
I think Prestige Classes are awesome and love writing them, but there are a few problems with the concept.
1) It is REALLY hard to please people with Prestige Classes. The line is super thin between "This sucks, why would I take this?" and "This is OP, why wouldn't I take this always?" This is even the case with, say, the Evangelist from Inner Sea Gods. That class's aligned class ability was argued about CONSTANTLY, but you NEVER see people talk about the class on the forums despite the fact that it might very well be the perfectly designed prestige class.
2) When [freelancers] get Prestige Classes in our outlines, we usually get two pages devoted to them. (A spread.) A quarter of that spread goes to the class's table, and an eighth goes to artwork. That's maybe 900 words, which makes it SUPER hard to make a compelling prestige class. The problem is that publishers can't often devote more space then that to prestige classes because its not a great use of space in terms of player excitement. Few people on the forums get excited about PrCs anymore, and there's been little buzz saying, "We want more PrCs! We want more PrCs," so guess what? You're not going to see them often.
Chances are you'll keep getting occasional feat and magic item support, with the occasional supporting archetype, like you've been seeing in recent Player Companions. That's been popular; people have been excited about it. And when people are excited about stuff, it tends to get put into outlines. Owen has a great post about how the Adventurer's Armory was the first Player Companion to ever sell out, and then two years later Ultimate Equipment happened.
Your wallet and words speak volumes together. ;-)
But the Prestige class itself is also a mechanic of the game.Yep. But simply being a mechanic isn't enough justification for clashing with it's flavour.
That's it though, I don't see how the examples you have been using DO clash.
If you join a knightly order, you can expect they will test you are combat worthy. This is mechanically a BAB requirement.
Could they use total attack bonus? Sure, but the rule would be much more complicated and wouldn't allow them to accomplish the important secondary design goal of setting a minimum entry point.
Similarly, if you wanted your Druidic circle to teach you rare fey magic, they might test your knowledge of the natural world and magic. Mechanically Knowledge Nature and Arcana.
Could they use total skill modifiers? Sure, but again the rule becomes much more complicated and they can't accomplish the secondary design goal.
Complicated is bad. Being able to tell if an ability is too strong by setting a minimum level for acquiring it is good. These are important considerations in game design.
But in both of these cases, the requirement, while not a perfect representation, is definitively related to the flavor of the class and organization involved.
I understand where you are coming from, but as a class is a mechanical element of the game, it will draw on other mechanics of the game.Yep.
They could have designed the prereqs to be based on total skill modifiers (a mechanic representing sum proficiency with the skill), but making it depend purely on ranks allows them to also set a level limit for entry.I'm aware.
You may be aware, but you don't seem to understand.
There are alternate mechanics presented to represent membership in organizations beside PrC, like the Faction rules.I definitely prefer them.
I don't personally care for them.
If you join a knightly order, you can expect they will test you are combat worthy. This is mechanically a BAB requirement.
Proceeds to pass the test, yet isn't allowed into the knightly order.
Similarly, if you wanted your Druidic circle to teach you rare fey magic, they might test your knowledge of the natural world and magic. Mechanically Knowledge Nature and Arcana.
Proceeds to pass the test, yet isn't allowed into the drudic circle.
Complicated is bad.
Wouldn't be any more complex than the rest of the game.
Being able to tell if an ability is too strong by setting a minimum level for acquiring it is good. These are important considerations in game design.
Yes. Doesn't change the fact that mechanics should be given flavour that it can accurately portray. Mechanically, there is good reason for those mechanics to exist. I just think they should have a different flavour rather than representing something in a poor manner.
definitively related to the flavor of the class and organization involved.
Yes definitely "related", but I do not feel that is enough.
You may be aware, but you don't seem to understand.
I do understand. I simply don't agree that it is enough justification for flavour to not match mechanics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In retrospect, prestige classes should have probably used total skill modifier or attack modifier (easier for an organization to test) instead of ranks or BAB for qualification, and then used character level {whatever} (usually 5) to set the minimum entry level.
I meant permanent (not spell/item-boosted) bonuses. Not THAT much more complication, since you have to keep track of those anyway for everyday use.
Yeah, but isn't that more complicated? By definition, you need to have at least 5 hit dice to have 5 ranks in a skill or BAB 5 unless you're a familiar. Also, total bonuses are much more mutable than numbers of ranks or total BAB. There's one spell (tenser's transformation), one class feature (ancestor oracle, spirit of the warrior), that temporarily boosts your BAB. There is one item (headband of vast intellect) that temporarily alters your skill ranks. There are a bazillion ways to temporarily boost a skill check or attack bonus (guidance, cleric granted domain powers, cat's grace, grease, etc.) Skill ranks, BAB, and feats are much easier to keep track of than total bonuses.
Thing is, that's already how it is with things like feats and ability scores iirc.
Also I'm pretty sure you lose the benefits of PrC's if you cease to meet it's prerequisites. Lead to many issues with dragon disciple in 3.5e actually since getting the capstone caused you to lose the PrC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Testing total skill modifier/attack modifier makes sense diagetically. If the secret society wants to me to prove how much I know about plants, they shouldn't be able to tell how many ranks I have in Knowledge (nature) versus whether I just took skill focus in it with fewer ranks. A society of craftsmen and women most likely wouldn't make their admission test harder for gnomes than for everybody else since the goal is "making things" more than "racism against gnomes."
If you really wanted to bar entry to PrCs before certain levels, it makes more sense to tie them to a number that has historically had diagetic meaning (your level, being your prowess and your reputation) than to rely on a number that simply has no meaning to someone living in the setting. There is no test anyone on Golarion could devise in order to tell the difference between 5 ranks of a skill and 2 ranks and skill focus in the same skill.
If they really wanted to keep me from using potions or magic items, the test for admission could just involve a ritual where you wear only a ceremonial garment and are ritually cleansed in a process that would remove lingering magics. Still, if a particularly clever PC wanted to try to trick the secret society into granting them membership (they'd catch you if you cast a spell during the test, but maybe a psychic caster could get away with it) there's probably a good story to tell there.
I think Prestige Classes are awesome and love writing them, but there are a few problems with the concept.
1) It is REALLY hard to please people with Prestige Classes. The line is super thin between "This sucks, why would I take this?" and "This is OP, why wouldn't I take this always?" This is even the case with, say, the Evangelist from Inner Sea Gods. That class's aligned class ability was argued about CONSTANTLY, but you NEVER see people talk about the class on the forums despite the fact that it might very well be the perfectly designed prestige class.
2) When [freelancers] get Prestige Classes in our outlines, we usually get two pages devoted to them. (A spread.) A quarter of that spread goes to the class's table, and an eighth goes to artwork. That's maybe 900 words, which makes it SUPER hard to make a compelling prestige class. The problem is that publishers can't often devote more space then that to prestige classes because its not a great use of space in terms of player excitement. Few people on the forums get excited about PrCs anymore, and there's been little buzz saying, "We want more PrCs! We want more PrCs," so guess what? You're not going to see them often.
Chances are you'll keep getting occasional feat and magic item support, with the occasional supporting archetype, like you've been seeing in recent Player Companions. That's been popular; people have been excited about it. And when people are excited about stuff, it tends to get put into outlines. Owen has a great post about how the Adventurer's Armory was the first Player Companion to ever sell out, and then two years later Ultimate Equipment happened.
Your wallet and words speak volumes together. ;-)
I would buy another Paths of Prestige type book the second it was put out. I've noticed several threads on this board and the general board from people wanting more prestige classes.
If you build it, people will come...
IF you 'justify' Ranks as representing what you know, and modifiers simply as thoroughness or speed you can execute at, Ranks make perfect sense.
Otherwise, you get idiocy like wearing an Elven Cloak to pass the +10 Stealth Req to PrC XXX, despite not having any ranks to qualify, you make it!
i.e. it provides parity between characters who don't possess the perfect gear/stats. Everyone has the same amount of max ranks by level.
==Aelryinth
I like Prestige classes from campaign point of view. I mostly use them for NPCs. Players could take them but I generally create PrC as the campaign developes. Since player usually have their character mapped out in stone from 1st to 20th these classes never get used for anything but NPCs.
I stand by prestige classes especially after inner sea gods. The three prestiges in there and then the follow up prestiges for empirical lords and the devil's are fantastic ideas of synergising feats with PrC heck I threw out a list of support themed classes in another post only last week and most of my ideas used PrCs.
I am more than happy for them to be a rare treat but they are a matter like most of Pathfinder of choice and let's encouraged that, they don't come out that often but of late they've all been gold. I think pazio are doing it right and realeasing them only if they are of a high quality and really add flavor.
Personally, I kind of miss prestige classes. They made sure you could turn just about any "base class" into something that you specifically wanted. You want a Druid with sneak attack or whatever? Sure, take some levels in assassin. Or you could make prestige classes built with the intent of adding a different theme to an already existing class, like the Hellfire Warlock prestige.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "I want a [x] but with [class-feature from another class]" is precisely the desire that archetypes address best and it's not really what Prestige classes should be for. "Monk who uses sneak attack" is better modeled by something like the "Monk of the Mantis" archetype than it is by taking n levels in monk and m levels in something else. After all, the levels you take in something other than monk aren't going to help you be a better "monk who uses..." you're just better at the thing, not better at being a monk.
Prestige classes should really represent something more interesting and, well, prestigious than "you get a feature that another class gets" since the latter isn't all that different from "just taking levels in another class" since that doesn't require jumping through hoops to qualify for.
Probably the rule of thumb should be that things that are general or applicable in most situations (being sneaky, doing your thing at range, emphasis on a specific kind of magic, etc.) are better modeled by archetypes whereas things that are highly specific or apply in unusual circumstances (being like a dragon with wings and a breath weapon, gaining power through self-harm, riding an enormous mount) are better as PrCs. Especially since "being sneaky" or "using a specific type of weapon or magic" are things that you should be able to focus on from the beginning.