Update or Upgrade the old Prestige Classes

[Saronian]

Maybe few others mentioned this, but a look back and fix of the old prestige classes might be in order, especially as newer classes, archetypes, and feats come out. In addition, a look a at organizations and characters that took the prestige classes pathfinder/Starfinder would be nice.

[Dasrak]

I would very much like to see this. A Pathfinder Unchained style rendition of some iconic prestige classes, like Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge, would be very cool. They never got justice in the 3.5->Pathfinder conversion, which is unfortunate. I've done a write-up of what I'd think an Unchained Eldritch Knight should look like (although I think a few of those powers may need toning down ;-), but I'd love to see Paizo do something in an official capacity.

[deuxhero]

It's a shame Paizo overhauled Arcane Trickster yet left Eldritch Knight untouched.

One of the biggest problem with the core dual advancement prestige classes is their requirements are way late entry and it's really hard to play a character intending to enter one effectively before entry. Eldritch Knight means you are a high strength wizard for 5 levels, a level 5 wizard while everyone else is level 6, take the class at 7 and finally have the equivlent of medium BAB at level 9.

Arcane Trickster's current level 5 entry with accomplished Sneak Attacker is actually pretty reasonable. Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurg should be changed to level 5+useful feat to match. Requiring level 2 spells from one class and level 1 spells from the other+Theurgy feat would be the easy way to solve Mystic Theurg, but I can't think of an as elegant Eldritch Knight one.

[Azten]

Too bad Paizo seems to... heavily dislike prestige classes. They much prefer a character stay single-classed, so base classes got bumped up and prestige classes not so much.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

I doubt they will. Paizo took the design choice of changing the "meta" from PrCs to standard classes. This also applies to multiclassing, which doesn't work except for "cheese" dipping or extremely niche situations.

[Rub-Eta]

I don't know. While the newer PrCs have been miles better than the earlier, I still feel like the underlying system for multi-classing is kinda flawed. It doesn't help that PrCs are torn between poor attempts at hammering those gaps and stand-alone niche classes in both flavor and mechanics. Neither of the approaches work as is, right now.

[RDM42]

Serious question - no snark. What niche do prestige classes fill for you that you can't get from base classes, archetypes et al?

[Dasrak]

RDM42 wrote:

Serious question - no snark. What niche do prestige classes fill for you that you can't get from base classes, archetypes et al?

They allow you to get combinations of abilities that are not possible with base classes, or for which there is no single archetype that fulfills them.

Archetypes are very nice packages, but they lock you into specific classes, and are often incompatible with each other. I've often been frustrated because the individual abilities I want exist, but are strewn across a bunch of incompatible classes and archetypes. Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.

[Rub-Eta]

Dasrak wrote:

Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.

I have to disagree.

[MMCJawa]

I like the Paizo approach to attaching Prestige classes to specific organizations. I feel that they should represent more specializations than just grab bag of abilities.

I would much rather see the generic prestige classes upgraded to full classes. I would rather play the character (or at least a less powerful version of one) from level one, rather than waiting 5 or 6 levels to get a prestige class, and hoping that the game doesn't die before then.

[Saronian]

RDM42 wrote:

Serious question - no snark. What niche do prestige classes fill for you that you can't get from base classes, archetypes et al?

The biggest issue I have is that certain classes, such as cleric, haven't been able to mix archetypes like others do. All too often, it seems like the archetypes are designed to replace entire areas. I would like to see more narrower archetypes that change one or two areas and can be stacked instead of having to wait for a new class to come out.

[SorrySleeping]

RDM42 wrote:

Serious question - no snark. What niche do prestige classes fill for you that you can't get from base classes, archetypes et al?

You have to look at this from a time perspective. Prestige classes have been around since the start of Pathfinder, with very little change or development to help them. Now we have Archetypes to cover most bases, after almost 10 years.

Rage Prophet is a Divine version of Bloodrager that doesn't exactly exist. There is one archetype for the Bloodrager that gets the Druid spell list, but I don't think that exactly counts with the Druid's weird spell list.

Mystic Theurge is a big one. Divine and Arcane spellcasting at once.

[Orthos]

I long ago replaced the core prestige classes with someone's homebrewed archetypes (or in the case of Eldritch Knight, a completely new base class in the form of the Magus). I imagine if they were to revamp them, that would be how they'd do it.

[Heofthehills]

Evangelist gave me hope that we would be seeing more viable PrCs in the future. It's still an amazing option for so many classes...

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, I really do not want the game to devolve into "you must build towards a prestige class", and would prefer to leave it as "if there's a prestige class that seems really appropriate for your character, go ahead and take it."

There have been some pretty decent ones in recent player companions, but I don't think that PrCs that essentially constitute a "build challenge" (e.g. Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge) really need to be improved.

If your schtick is really "does two unrelated things well" that's better represented by a class or an archetype that does those things well from the beginning. Prestige classes should be for things too specific or too powerful (e.g. you've got a mammoth) for level 1 characters.

[Vidmaster7]

I think I prefer archetypes to prestige classes. I would prefer some of the old prestiges done in archetype form. save the prestiges for the super niche stuff. IF only the archetypes weren't almost always a weaker choice then the main class. I get that they shouldn't overshadow but some of them are too bad to play.

[Dasrak]

Rub-Eta wrote:

Dasrak wrote:

Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.

I have to disagree.

Could you elaborate? I feel it's kinda self-evident that PRC's offer more combinations than archetypes possibly could.

Most prestige classes allow you to use a variety of classes to qualify. In fact, I'd regard this as the defining advantage of prestige classes over archetypes. When Paizo publishes an archetype it applies only to one class, and will be incompatible with at least some of the other archetypes for the class. When Paizo publishes a prestige class it can draw from the abilities (and archetypes) of any class or combinations of classes that can viably qualify. Unless the prestige class is written so narrowly that only one or two classes can qualify (in which case I'd agree it should have been an archetype instead) it will necessarily allow for more combinations of abilities than any archetype could. In fact, the publishing of more archetypes just adds more options for the PRC's because they can be used together.

As an example, we have an archetype for the Magus that lets us cast spontaneously, and an archetype that lets it use its class features with archery. However, Eldritch Scion and Eldritch Archer are incompatible, so it is not feasible to combine these two things even though archetypes exist for them. Now compare with using Eldritch Knight; I just use Sorcerer as my arcane caster entry method, and I'm done. I'm still free to use any martial class I want, apply any archetypes to those classes, and I've also got Sorcerer bloodlines to pick from. That offers a heck of a lot more build flexibility, and the EK is an empty shell of a class with no features to speak of.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yeah, I really do not want the game to devolve into "you must build towards a prestige class", and would prefer to leave it as "if there's a prestige class that seems really appropriate for your character, go ahead and take it."

3.5 definitely had an issue with prestige classes being effectively mandatory, but that had more to do with the base classes having pretty much nothing to look forward to by staying single-class. While Pathfinder has a few front-loaded exception, by and large every class has ample reason to stick around now so I don't feel there's a serious threat of PRC's becoming mandatory as they did in 3.5.

[Rub-Eta]

Dasrak wrote:

Rub-Eta wrote:

Dasrak wrote:

Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.

I have to disagree.

Could you elaborate? I feel it's kinda self-evident that PRC's offer more combinations than archetypes possibly could.

I really don't find PrCs to be sufficient. Out of the 100+ of them there is, only a hand full of them are attractive, who actually offer balanced mechanics and distinct flavor. Many times I find core/base/hybrid classes with archetypes to fill the bill of my character concept equally flavorful but with superior mechanical options (not breaking level progression for scaling abilities, etc). Some PrCs are even so bad so that regular multi-classing is better.

I also find that a lot of the PrCs come into play way too late for them to actually be considered. I want my character to be online by level 5.

And again, I really hate that PrCs are torn between being used as their own separate classes with prerequisites (take any of the PrCs from Path of the Righteous, by far some of the best PrCs I've seen) and blunt tools to hammer out the already poor multi-classing system (Eldritch Knight, Rage Prophet, etc).

And about archetypes: There are a lot of sheite archetypes. But there are some really golden ones that makes it all worth it.

[UnArcaneElection]

MMCJawa wrote:

I like the Paizo approach to attaching Prestige classes to specific organizations. I feel that they should represent more specializations than just grab bag of abilities.

I would much rather see the generic prestige classes upgraded to full classes. I would rather play the character (or at least a less powerful version of one) from level one, rather than waiting 5 or 6 levels to get a prestige class, and hoping that the game doesn't die before then.

These are my thoughts also, but I would also state the reverse: Some of the organization/philosophy-attached archetypes should really be prestige classes; this even applies occasionally to whole classes (Paladin/Antipaladin, Monk, and Inquisitor, I'm looking at you).

And Paizo actually has come out with new non-generic prestige classes fairly recently, so they haven't committed wholeheartedly to dumping prestige classes. However, the old generic prestige classes are still around, with variable amounts of update (anything from 0% to 100% of what is needed). Also some old non-generic prestige classes (including cool ideas such as Genie Binder and Daivrat) are still around without an update (in these cases not even having been updated for the transition from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder).

Now one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet(*) -- for prestige classes that aren't generic but that can be attached to more than one related(**) organization or philosophy -- is prestige class archetypes.

(*)As far as I know, except for some really old post of mine.

(**)Even if related in opposition.

Edit: Another thing I'd like to see fixed in prestige classes is to have a decently large subset of them that are good for 6/9 and/or 4/9 spellcasters without being overpowered for 9/9 spellcasters. Currently, not many fulfill this specification.

[Dasrak]

Rub-Eta wrote:

I really don't find PrCs to be sufficient. Out of the 100+ of them there is, only a hand full of them are attractive, who actually offer balanced mechanics and distinct flavor.

...
I also find that a lot of the PrCs come into play way too late for them to actually be considered. I want my character to be online by level 5.

I would definitely agree that the selection of prestige classes in Pathfinder is sub-par. I think that's one thing you'll find the pro- and anti- PRC crowds can agree on, that the current slate of offerings is pretty bad.

I reiterate what my first post in this thread said. I would love to see Paizo revisit these classes and give them an unchained-style buff to make these PRC's work better. I'll also link again to my own homebrew Eldritch Knight unchained as an example of what I think such a PRC should look like. I feel it addresses most, if not all, of the concerns you'd raised. Concerns I agree with, and feel that PRC's could be designed to address gracefully.

[UnArcaneElection]

They aren't all bad, but you have to sift through quite a lot to find the good stuff, and you have to build carefully. I should write a review of prestige classes, but not tonight.

[Saronian]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

They aren't all bad, but you have to sift through quite a lot to find the good stuff, and you have to build carefully. I should write a review of prestige classes, but not tonight.

That's part of the problem I am having. Some PrCs, like the Mystic Theurge, rely too much on rules lawyering and having the precise set up of classes, feats, skills, and spells to in order to make it work.

I don't mind some loose connections, but anything that requires a PC to hit every marker to be "viable" isn't much fun.

I also like the idea of each PrC being part of an organization that can help it along. I don't know if something like the Hellknights would be the best solution, but something like it wouldn't be far off, I believe.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Both types of Hellknight are pretty good examples of how prestige classes should have been designed for what was out at the time. Hellknight (without the Signifer) is still not too shabby, although it needs a bit of an update for newer material. Hellknight Signifer is still good for Wizards and Clerics, but needs an update for newer material, including a way for it to work well with 6/9 casters. Unfortunately, neither Path of the Hellknight nor the Adventurer's Guide did enough in that regard. (Most glaring example, aside from the obvious problem that nearly all spellcasting prestige classes have with 6/9 casters: Unless you manage to do some shenanigans to get Warrior Priest as an arcane caster, you have to have Arcane Armor Training to get in as an arcane caster, and Arcane Armor Training is a trap feat for most types of Magus and a few types of Bard.)

[Saronian]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Both types of Hellknight are pretty good examples of how prestige classes should have been designed for what was out at the time. Hellknight (without the Signifer) is still not too shabby, although it needs a bit of an update for newer material. Hellknight Signifer is still good for Wizards and Clerics, but needs an update for newer material, including a way for it to work well with 6/9 casters. Unfortunately, neither Path of the Hellknight nor the Adventurer's Guide did enough in that regard. (Most glaring example, aside from the obvious problem that nearly all spellcasting prestige classes have with 6/9 casters: Unless you manage to do some shenanigans to get Warrior Priest as an arcane caster, you have to have Arcane Armor Training to get in as an arcane caster, and Arcane Armor Training is a trap feat for most types of Magus and a few types of Bard.)

One thought that has occurred to me is the use of the PrC in PFS play and other formats. How often do Prestige Classes get used? Are there any that get used more often than not?

As is, it seems that the additional classes and Archetypes are hurting, if not straight up killing, the Prestige Class.

Besides the Mystic Theurge and the comment about the Eldritch Knight, are there any other Prestige Classes that are not very popular, either because of rules, features, or style?

[PossibleCabbage]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

(Most glaring example, aside from the obvious problem that nearly all spellcasting prestige classes have with 6/9 casters: Unless you manage to do some shenanigans to get Warrior Priest as an arcane caster, you have to have Arcane Armor Training to get in as an arcane caster, and Arcane Armor Training is a trap feat for most types of Magus and a few types of Bard.)

I don't disagree, but the question I have is how many column inches is it appropriate to devote to fixing this when a GM (or PFS as a whole) could just handwave this by granting an exception to classes that get arcane casting in armor through a class feature, and thus don't need a feat (or would need to take a different feat.)

Prestige classes as "specialists within an organization" would probably do better if they had a range of requirements for entry, rather than implying that if you want to get anywhere as a Crimson templar you're going to need to be adept with the Bastard sword (surely Ragathiel's faithful could use some people with polearms or maybe an archer.)

I guess there's also the option of just making lots of different prestige classes for an organization to highlight different roles, but how many more column inches do the Hellknights really need?

[Saronian]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

(Most glaring example, aside from the obvious problem that nearly all spellcasting prestige classes have with 6/9 casters: Unless you manage to do some shenanigans to get Warrior Priest as an arcane caster, you have to have Arcane Armor Training to get in as an arcane caster, and Arcane Armor Training is a trap feat for most types of Magus and a few types of Bard.)

I don't disagree, but the question I have is how many column inches is it appropriate to devote to fixing this when a GM (or PFS as a whole) could just handwave this by granting an exception to classes that get arcane casting in armor through a class feature, and thus don't need a feat (or would need to take a different feat.)

Prestige classes as "specialists within an organization" would probably do better if they had a range of requirements for entry, rather than implying that if you want to get anywhere as a Crimson templar you're going to need to be adept with the Bastard sword (surely Ragathiel's faithful could use some people with polearms or maybe an archer.)

I guess there's also the option of just making lots of different prestige classes for an organization to highlight different roles, but how many more column inches do the Hellknights really need?

That would actually be pretty cool. I figure that Nex would be a good location for Mystic Theurges since they are mixing Arcane and Divine powers.

[Bladelock]

I don't think the power levels for most of the Prestige Classes would be off if the prereqs were less rigid. Making a minimum level to enter the PrC and a flavorful prereq should be enough of a change.

[UnArcaneElection]

Hellknights are important enough that they actually do merit more page space.

[blahpers]

Lower the entry level requirement for mystic theurge and offset the long-term power level concerns by removing progression from a level or two scattered throughout to compensate. You could even drop an interesting ability on those missing levels. (Yes, I know prestigious spellcaster would offset some of that, but that's a painful choice for a feat-starved character.)

[PossibleCabbage]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Hellknights are important enough that they actually do merit more page space.

The question though, is "how much is enough"? I'm not saying "no more Hellknight stuff ever" but there are other corners of Golarion I'd like a deeper dive on first. TBH I feel sometimes that the whole Chellish side of things has gotten too much attention, and I'd be much more interested in reading about "what's going on in the Chellish colonies in Arcadia" than Cheliax itself at this point.

(Though I grant that there are some serious problematic issues with how Arcadia was presented initially, I just feel that it'd be better to address those rather than ignoring them.)

[Herald]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Hellknights are important enough that they actually do merit more page space.

They just got a whole Player's Companion guide. Do we really need that much more HellKnight material?

[UnArcaneElection]

^I was referring to the bolus of material that they just got . . . except that despite a reprinting of both types of Hellknight prestige class, neither Path of the Hellknight nor the Adventurer's Guide fixed the problems that have come up in those classes simply due to their hanging around while the base classes have proliferated well beyond the Core Classes (with the spellcasting for 6/9 casters and the Arcane Armor Training feat tax being the most glaring examples).

* * * * * * * *

And here's my latest rudiment of an idea for Mystic Theurge.

[Bladelock]

IMO Mystic Theurge is not that far from good. I think with a minimum level of entry locked at 6, as well as prereqs of 1 level in a divine casting class and 1 level in an arcane casting class, the PRC would be fine.

Using minimum levels in addition to very few or easy to obtain prereqs will also open up interesting options prior to entry.

[Ciaran Barnes]

I would like prestige classes to have less prerequisites in some cases. Some of them get kind of crazy. The intention was that the ones with more prerequisites or more powerful. That is all fine and well, but then no one uses the prestige class. I would like to have more 3 to 5 level prestige classes. Too many have 10. I think most of the prestige classes should be available to a variety of characters. I believe that a prestige class that caters towards a specific character class should be an archetype instead.

[UnArcaneElection]

^More <10 level prestige classes is not necessarily a bad idea(*), but keep in mind that if one of these progresses spellcasting, but has at least 1 level that does not progress spellcasting, it makes Favored Prestige Class an even more burdensome feat tax than it already is. (For a non-spellcaster, Favored Prestige Class is already far sub-par -- I'd like to see this fixed by having it let you count your Favored Prestige Class as your favored base class, or one of your favored base classes if you somehow have more than 1 of them, for the purpose of advancing an alternative Favored Class Bonus.)

(*)Although some of the existing 3 level and 5 level prestige classes are overly compressed.

I'd also like to see some >10 level prestige classes.

[Dasrak]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I'd like to see this fixed by having it let you count your Favored Prestige Class as your favored base class, or one of your favored base classes if you somehow have more than 1 of them, for the purpose of advancing an alternative Favored Class Bonus

This on its own would do worlds of good for improving the Sorcerer's prospects for PRC'ing.

[Saronian]

You know, WotC had a number of Prestige classes that were three and five levels long. Not extremely overpowering, but more flavorful than anything. They offered some unique and focused leveling on certain class features.

Having that as a prestige class option would be nice, but wouldn't solve the initial problem of the Core Prestige Classes being under used.

[Ciaran Barnes]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I'd also like to see some >10 level prestige classes

Whoa! PF has enough classes as it is! :D

[Douglas Muir 406]

After the hatchet job they did on the Diabolist, I'm in no hurry to see Paizo "update" their older PrCs. The Diabolist was a terrific PrC: it was strong but not OP, it was crazy flavorful, it was balanced, and it was fun to play. To be specific: It was balanced because it avoided most of the problems that plague other PrCs. On one hand, it didn't force the players to make annoying, limiting choices like giving up caster levels. On the other, it did place important limitations on them (alignment, damnation) with interesting consequences. It gave benefits that scaled with level (the imp companion, the Cha bonuses) but that were inherently limited by being thematic, aligned, or specialized.

I've been talking to people about their play experiences with Diabolists for nearly five years on these forums. (Yeah, I wrote the Guide to the Diabolist, way back in 2012.) People generally enjoyed playing them, sometimes a lot -- but nobody, player or GM, ever said the Diabolist was OP, dominated the campaign, or was unbalanced. It was a fun, well designed PrC that neatly filled a thematic niche without being overly strong or annoyingly feeble.

Then Paizo republished it in Book of the Damned, and now it's junk. It's underpowered and (IMO) a lot less fun to play. Here's a single example: the Diabolist now gives up a level of casting. Paizo has gone back and forth on this over the years, but the current philosophy seems to be that ALL PrCs will give up a level of casting. I asked James Jacobs why this had to be. Here's the answer I got:

Me: "Why can't we have PrCs with full casting?

JJ: "Because of the design philosophy that wants to make multiclassing and prestige class options be tough choices rather than no-brainers. We don't want to set things up so that sticking with a single class to 20th level is always a bad choice, and that's a path that 3rd edition D&D went with their prestige classes that we don't want to follow.

"Those who want full spellcasting can use the favored prestige class feats I introduced in Paths of the Righteous."

So, going forward, all casting PrCs will lose that caster level.

Doug M.

[PossibleCabbage]

Well, is "Casters have an additional 2 feat tax to use PrCs" that onerous considering that a lot of Martial oriented PrCs ask for 3 or 4 feats before you qualify for them?

It's not like Favored Prestige Class is a bad feat, it's 2/3 of Skill Focus plus half of toughness/cunning.

[Douglas Muir 406]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, is "Casters have an additional 2 feat tax to use PrCs" that onerous considering that a lot of Martial oriented PrCs ask for 3 or 4 feats before you qualify for them?

Yes, it really is, because fighters have feats to burn while full casters tend to be feat-starved. So, for instance, say you're a wizard who wants to become a Diabolist but without losing a level of casting. The Obedience eats one feat slot, and then the two tax feats eat two more, so you're left with one plus your bonus feat. Since a lot of the more powerful wizard builds rely on feat chains, this is really problematic.

(If you're, say, a dwarven cleric? Oh, man. Up to 9th level you will have exactly one [1] feat slot.)

Quote:

It's not like Favored Prestige Class is a bad feat, it's 2/3 of Skill Focus plus half of toughness/cunning.

No, because timing. It's a chain of two feats, yes? So, consider the wizard above. If he doesn't want to lose that level, he has to take Prestigious Caster at 7th. Otherwise he doesn't get the lost caster level back until 9th, right? So, okay, he takes Prestigious Caster at 7th... but that means he has to take FPC at 5th. So, for three levels he's carrying a feat that only gives him +2 on one skill, and then for one level he's carrying a feat that does nothing at all. And then once he does hit 8th and enters the PrC, he gets to keep that caster level and he also gains... one hp.

So, timing. At 8th level it is 2/3 of skill focus but only 1/8th of toughness. At 12th level it is 1/3 of toughness, but now only 1/3 of skill focus.

And then of course there's the issue of fixed feat vs. feat slot. The caster is being forced to take feats that he doesn't want. It's as if, instead of a bonus feat slot at first level, every fighter got toughness. That would be annoying and non-fun, no? And also mechanically inferior, because it wouldn't let you start feat chains, build synergies, etc.

Doug M.

[Nathan Monson]

or you can just take the magical knack trait, and call it good.

[PossibleCabbage]

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Yes, it really is, because fighters have feats to burn while full casters tend to be feat-starved.

Well, the Wizard and Sorcerer get more bonus feats than the Barbarian, Paladin, Rogue, or Cavalier, and the martial classes have to deal with ridiculous feat taxes (because the fighter gets so many feats) to begin with.

I've never felt feat-starved as a full caster, just the opposite honestly.

[Douglas Muir 406]

How Paizo Wrecked The Diabolist

[For The Like Two People Who Actually Care]

Let me note here that I have probably given the Diabolist prestige class more thought than any human being alive today. I wrote the Guide to the Diabolist, which last time I checked was over 30 pages long. The damn thing just grew, okay? Yes, this is some deep nerdery, and yes, it's long. Go on, read something else.

So, specific issues. (1) Lost level of casting. No reason for this other than to make the Diabolist consistent with the current generation of PrCs. James Jacobs notes that you can "fix" this by burning two feats. The Diabolist, like most PrCs, is already painfully feat-starved. Losing a level of casting really hurts; losing two feats really hurts. They're both non-fun. And none of this is necessary because the class was balanced to begin with. (2) No more early entry. Previously, you could enter as early as 6th level if you were willing to buy a scroll of Lesser Planar Binding and take your chances with scroll failure. That was an interesting little sub-game in its own right! Now, skill rank requirements mean you can't enter before 8th level. This also means that the level-linked aspects of the class (Hellish Transport, Hellfire Ray) are less useful because you get them later. (3) Imp companion is now an imp familiar, which scales differently and is less interesting. (The imp companion served Hell, not you.) They attempt to balance this by giving the imp some more SLAs, but hold portal once/day is not really doing it. (4) Alignment is now restricted to LE instead of LN/LE/NE. That makes the class narrower and less attractive, and yet it doesn't make thematic sense; you can be LN or NE and Asmodeus will welcome your worship. (5) The Diabolist is now tied to the system of Obediences; they must worship an archdevil or similar, do the obediences and get the boons and benefits.

Okay, so this... this is a TERRIBLE design idea. I can understand why Paizo did it. They've gone to a lot of trouble to set up this whole system of Obediences. (Which is IMO itself a questionable design decision, but let that bide.) So why not plug the Diabolist into it? Several reasons.

One, from a RP perspective, the Diabolist now has his feet nailed to the floor as someone who actually worships an archdevil (or whatever), and is willing to eat bugs every day to prove it. You can't just be a guy who's made a deal. Two, mechanically, the Obedience/Boon/Benefits for the archdevils are a complete mess. Some of them are completely stupid and useless. Most of them are weak (including the ones for Asmodeus, which... wth, guys?) A few of them are good, and a couple of them are OP. I actually went through all of the Archdukes and Dukes a few weeks ago, reviewing all their boons, benefits and obediences. So when I say they're wildly uneven, I'm not kidding. I've gone to some trouble to confirm that. Three, in addition to being uneven as to power, they're also uneven in application. Like: many require touch attacks, which is problematic for squishy casters. Many more are built off Cha, which favors Cha-based casters. The old Diabolist was neutral and little-c catholic; anyone could join! The new version firmly is not; because of the way the benefit system is designed, they tend to be good for clerics, meh for sorcerors, and bad for wizards. Fourth, even the good paths deliver their benefits in an extremely lumpy way: you get junk until, say, 13th level and then suddenly you get a benefit that's OP. The most extreme examples are junk until 16th level and then give you something like "once/day, true resurrection as a SLA (free, no 25,000 gp cost)". This is poor design, and it also encourages weird character builds, particularly if you're building characters from scratch at high levels. Nobody's going to actually worship Lorthact from 1st level, but if you're starting at level 16? Heck yeah.

Fifth, it eats a feat (for the Obedience) and, as noted, the Diabolist was feat-starved to begin with. Sixth, as various people have noted, PrCs can be great when they're plugged into an organization. And that's true! But the diabolical obedience system doesn't do that. You're linked to worship, but unless you live in Cheliax you're probably not part of a church. And even then, you're not required to be. This is thematically kind of odd: you must be LE, and worship Moloch or whoever, but otherwise you can completely ignore the church and other worshippers. It's a purely mechanical system that doesn't link to anything else in-game.

And seventh and finally, even though Paizo has provided about 30 different Dukes and Archdukes, not a single one is a natural fit for a Diabolist. I mean, what's the whole point of a Diabolist? You're a guy who has sworn your soul to Hell in return for the power to call and summon things. There are some side bits like the imp, but that's the core of the class. And it's ICONIC. Evil wizards have been summoning stuff with Hell's assistance since the Middle Ages! But the new Diabolist has that iconic purity blurred and diluted. They're doing silly Obediences like "lie in mud" or "sing a song", and in return for it they're getting random powers that aren't related to the core mission of calling and summoning things. It's like giving a paladin the power to pick pockets. Even if it's formally beneficial, it's just a bad fit.

Why This Is Indicative Of A Larger Problem

Because AFAWCT, most of these changes were made for the sake of consistency. The caster level was removed, not because the old Diabolist was unbalanced, but because all PrCs must now lose a caster level. The imp became a familiar because imps should be familiars, not companions. The alignment became LE because it was included in BoTD as part of a trifecta of "evil" classes, each bound to a specific alignment: the NE Souleater (which also got nerfed) and the CE Demoniac. It was tied to the Obedience system because that system exists now, and all three "evil" classes got tied to it whether it made sense or not.

All of these decisions were made for consistency and none of them were made based on whether the class was any fun to play. Did the designers stop at any moment and ask themselves, will this be cool? will it be iconic? will it make people look at this class and say, heck yeah? will it be fun to play? As far as can be told, no -- they didn't. They just clipped and cut it so that it fit editorial policy and was consistent.

So, to bring it back to the original point: if this is how Paizo is going to "update" their older PrCs, please no. Better if they just don't.

Doug M.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the biggest problem with "all casters lose a casting level by taking a PrC" is that it doesn't make a lick of sense with some of the casting-focused PrCs.

Like why should the Magaambyan Arcanist lose a casting level, when the lore of the class is that you're one of the best of the best of the oldest magical academy on Golarion. Why does the Cyphermage being a master of an ancient kind of magic mean they should be less good at magic for some reason? Does "all PrCs must lose a casting level" mean that you just won't make classes like that anymore? That would be a shame.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Wait, when was Magaambyan Arcanist updated to lose a level of spellcasting progression?

[Douglas Muir 406]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Wait, when was Magaambyan Arcanist updated to lose a level of spellcasting progression?

I don't think it was. I think his point is, if it were to be updated today, Paizo would probably strip a level of casting, because current policy is that all PrCs lose a level of casting. Which goes to the OP: please, Paizo, don't go back and "fix" those older PrCs.

(I have the distinct impression that the introduction of FPC and Prestigious Caster has fed into the current policy. Like, the designers are now thinking "well if you're that upset about losing a level of casting, you can just take the two feats". If you're that upset about having one leg cut off at the knee, we can now sell you this awesome prosthetic!)

Doug M.

[PossibleCabbage]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Wait, when was Magaambyan Arcanist updated to lose a level of spellcasting progression?

I was just musing that a policy of "you always lose a casting level" (despite the numerous counterexamples in the Adventurer's Guide and Paths of Righteousness) is sort of incompatible with those PrCs that are basically "you're mastering a specific kind of magic" where the features are basically "you get some different kind of spells" or "you get bonuses to a few narrow things".

It just seems like "intently studying at a specific school or a specific kind of magic" is a fine concept for a PrC but not the sort of thing that makes sense if it costs you casting progression.

[Douglas Muir 406]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

a policy of "you always lose a casting level" (despite the numerous counterexamples in the Adventurer's Guide and Paths of Righteousness) is sort of incompatible with those PrCs that are basically "you're mastering a specific kind of magic" where the features are basically "you get some different kind of spells" or "you get bonuses to a few narrow things".

It just seems like "intently studying at a specific school or a specific kind of magic" is a fine concept for a PrC but not the sort of thing that makes sense if it costs you casting progression.

Right?

Also, I note that of 8 caster classes in Paths of Righteousness, 7 lose 1 or more levels of casting. The odd exception is the Stargazer. So they nerf two classic, iconic PrCs with the lost caster level, zap 7 out of 8 new PrCs with the lost caster level, but make a special exception for... the Stargazer. Just, what.

Doug M.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

a policy of "you always lose a casting level" (despite the numerous counterexamples in the Adventurer's Guide and Paths of Righteousness) is sort of incompatible with those PrCs that are basically "you're mastering a specific kind of magic" where the features are basically "you get some different kind of spells" or "you get bonuses to a few narrow things".

It just seems like "intently studying at a specific school or a specific kind of magic" is a fine concept for a PrC but not the sort of thing that makes sense if it costs you casting progression.

Right?

Also, I note that of 8 caster classes in Paths of Righteousness, 7 lose 1 or more levels of casting. The odd exception is the Stargazer. So they nerf two classic, iconic PrCs with the lost caster level, zap 7 out of 8 new PrCs with the lost caster level, but make a special exception for... the Stargazer. Just, what.

Doug M.

This has always been a fundamental issue with Prestige Classes: The whole 'give a little to get a little' trade off you are supposed to make gets very problematic when your class features are 'Spellcasting, and a bunch of little stuff no one cares about anyway.' Admittedly, this was far worse in 3.0/3.5 when wizards only got feats and a familiar, sorcerers only got a familiar, and Clerics got Channel Energy and maybe a scaling domain ability, but it's still difficult to come up with a fair trade off if you are gaining something significant. When the early prestige classes became a 'dip-fest' for casters in 3.0, they basically standardized on a 'first level of a PrC shouldn't improve spellcasting' policy that is still generally followed (I seem to recall at least one 5 level PrC for 3.0 clerics that gave you a caster level and another domain at level 1 that just screamed 'DIP ME!').

In addition to this issue that was inherited from WotC, Pazio added another issue with their increased attention to Capstone powers: Now, if they rebuilt the Mystic Theurge as a 14 level class so Wizard/Clerics could maximize it, a Sorcerer/Oracle could never reach the capstone ability.

Overall, Prestige Classes seem to fall into the 'a beautiful theory marred by an ugly set of facts' category: Doing them well (for casters, at least) would probably require a rebuild of the magic system from the ground up.