Wildly unpopular opinions - wizard should have been a prestige class


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is it just me, or does it seem like wizard should have been a prestige class that was accessible for selecting at level 3 or 4.

Not really from a power perspective (although possibly so from a power perspective), but it is just hard to see how the years of training it would take to become a wizard is less "developmentally oriented" as the years and training it would take to become a hell-knight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An interesting point on the time investment idea. Cool take.

My opinion is that all wizards are insufferable once they hit 11th level and are best power attacked by the barbarian at session one: introductions in a bar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That was one of the coolest things about the old 2nd edition dragonlance mythos, that a wizard wasn't really a wizard until they passed the test to prove it.


You can be a soldier with a decorated history of valor in combat, and at level one you don't know how to use a sword anymore. Must have slipped in the shower, bonked the head, or something.

Point is, most classes take years of training, being Harry Potter doesn't take any more or less time than becoming Inigo Montoya.


Oh brother.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oy. I just rolled my eyes so hard, I checked out my own ass.

This is accounted for in the age determination, with wizard being a 'trained' class and thus adding the most years to your pre-adventuring career.


VoodistMonk wrote:

You can be a soldier with a decorated history of valor in combat, and at level one you don't know how to use a sword anymore. Must have slipped in the shower, bonked the head, or something.

Point is, most classes take years of training, being Harry Potter doesn't take any more or less time than becoming Inigo Montoya.

At level one, you aren’t a decorated soldier with a history of valor. That is merely putting the cart in front of the horse. It is claiming backstory that dont have the mechanics to back them up.


That valor in combat can also be what took you from commoner to warrior to fighter in the first place. You know how to use a sword--you just aren't the best swordsperson in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This should probably be more of a setting consideration than a system mechanics issue. It can work, but it changes a lot of fundamental assumptions about the game which need to be taken into account when designing adventures, the rest of the world, and the cosmology.

Depending on the setting, it may make sense to restrict all casting classes from being taken at 1st level. One thematic way of doing this is to gate spellcasting classes behind the Eldritch Heritage feat (maybe also requiring certain bloodlines for certain classes*); this could also possibly be combined with the prestige variants for bards, paladins, and rangers (and developing other prestige variants for bloodrager, inquisitor, etc.).

*- such as Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal, Undead, etc. for clerics; Aquatic, Boreal, Elemental, Stormborn, Verdant, etc. for druids; and so forth


Although it create the even-more-bizarre spectacle of somebody who studies for years to become a Fighter 3, then immediately becomes a Prestige Wizard at level 4, spending even less time becoming a Wizard that a guy who trains off-screen for several years as a level 1 Wizard.

Either you enter the Wizard prestige class without requiring arcane casting first, or if you require it first you end up with a lot of Sorcerers or Bards who spontaneously develop magic, then ignore their bloodlines to learn to cast from a book instead.

Either way doesn't demonstrate a more sense-making path than making Wizard available from Level 1.


At low levels, wizard is not a very prestigious class. It's not until 5th level that they start to get spells that have a serious impact, and even then they only get 1-2 per day. Not very prestigious. They get fewer spells than a sorcerer, so the only thing going for them is that they get new spell levels a level earlier; not enough to scream prestige to me. In fact, its' not until about 11th level that they begin to have game changing power, but that's compensation for all the years spent underpowered in comparison to their martial brethren. Even then, they are still only 1 level ahead of sorcerers or arcanists.

Besides, who actually uses prestige classes, apart from Eldritch knight, Dragon Disciple and Arcane trickster on rare occasions? Personally I'd like to see them phased out in favour of archetypes (for Magus, Sorcerer and Rogue respectively).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:


Besides, who actually uses prestige classes, apart from Eldritch knight, Dragon Disciple and Arcane trickster on rare occasions? Personally I'd like to see them phased out in favour of archetypes (for Magus, Sorcerer and Rogue respectively).

While I think that prestige classes could have been a very good way for a D20 system to work, I agree that with the introduction of archetypes, they have kind of been made into a redundant mess. I think it could have worked for a system to have jest a few basic classes (fighter, rogue, magic-user, cleric) and then have most of the trained classes have some requirements to make it a little more clear that your character is dedicating themselves to the path of wizard, or paladin or such that you start on at level 4. Then folks that wanted to play more developed characters could just start the game at level 4. THis would have made it a little harder to spam 1st level class levels that give access to the more powerful abilities, but left open the possibility for characters to be designed to qualify for 2 or more prestige classes, if a player really wanted to be a what multi-class characters are now, but that is not the direction 3.X went. As a result, it has made most prestige classes questionable as having stiff requirement gates, to get access to maybe one or two abilities that fit a player's concept for the character. Archetypes seems like the way they are trying to fix that for the new edition, I am interested to see how that works out in practice.

One thing that is less ideal for me about archetypes instead of prestige classes, is the higher level abilities are pretty fixed once you start down the path of that archetype, but with the class feats concept, it seems like archetypes might not be as restrictive.


Wizards take longer to train, which is why they typically have an older starting age than more self-taught classes. In your setting/games, maybe make that starting age even older if you want.

It doesn't make sense to me to make wizard a PRC, as wizards-to-be wouldn't be out adventuring to learn to become a wizard, but stuck in class/training.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want prestige classes to be more predominate I think what you'd want is for classes to only have 5-10 levels in a 20 level game. So eventually you must multi-class or prestige to continue leveling. That would require a total reworking of the way magic classes advance, but it wouldn't be all that extreme of a change.

Like you would have one table for Standard casters, one for spontaneous casters, and one for low progression casters. Each class would have its own modifier for how its spells are learned, memorized, and cast but as long as you have classes for that caster type they all stack to show what you get as a base.

An example is you could mix Sorcerer, Arcanist and Oracle levels since they are all Spontaneous. You would be limited on the max level of spells you could memorize based on how many levels of each class you've taken. So an an example lets say you started as a Sorcerer and you kept that up for 8 levels before switching to Oracle. At 12th level you are a Sorcerer 8 and Oracle 4. You can learn Sorcerer spells up to 8th level, and Oracle spells up to 4th level. If you don't pick up a 9th level in any spontaneous class you won't be able to learn 9th level spells even if you have the slots to cast them available! You'll be able to use them to under cast spells or for metamagic.

This way of handling access to spell levels would work for magic items as well. A 5th level cleric could use a scroll of Raise Dead, but a 4th level cleric couldn't because they don't have access to the spell yet. If you want to dip into a class to get access to its spell list, you need enough levels to be able to earn it eventually.

This way prestige classes might be worth aiming for, and it would be easy to create a 2nd Wizard class that is the current 11-20. It wouldn't be absolutely broken to dip into another class, and it wouldn't gimp you later if you did multi-class as long as you made smart decisions in class choices.

But it would require a complete redesign of the leveling system and most classes would load in a lot of abilities aiming at 5th level and beyond for the power abilities. Most of the core classes would be a full 10, but I could see most prestige classes being only 5 levels with some having a prerequisite of 15th level character!


I don't think you need to make the wizards older at all, you are ~18yo when you graduate Hogwarts, just like my fighter graduating basic training. Children can be wizards, obviously doesn't take that long.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like you want to take the D20 modern approach.

All of the base classes are literally "I'm good at this stat", "Tough Hero" (Con), "Smart Hero" (Int), etc. Then once you hit level 3-4 you can qualify for advanced classes, which are more in line with fighter, wizard, etc. Then at around levels 7-8 you can start taking prestige classes.

It's a cool system, but I have a hard time getting anyone interested in playing it.


VoodistMonk wrote:
I don't think you need to make the wizards older at all, you are ~18yo when you graduate Hogwarts, just like my fighter graduating basic training.

Hogwarts wizards are more like Sorcerers, or maybe Arcanists. They have magic in their bloodline and can cast fairly powerful spells from early childhood.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I keep forgetting that D&D wizards are just thieves. No matter how much of a "trained" class they are, they just steal magic and read it out of a book because they aren't magical.


Is whoever they're stealing it from ever going to try and take it back?


We can only hope. Sorcerers with the Hatred trait towards wizards. Built in disdain towards wizards from the classes that are inherently magical. It's all just fluff for role playing, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LordKailas wrote:

It sounds like you want to take the D20 modern approach...

It's a cool system, but I have a hard time getting anyone interested in playing it.

I played it and enjoyed it and sometimes think about coming back to it, but it is not high fantasy and their attempts to provide that material fell pretty flat/they never had the star power story-telling/world-buliding back up of Pathfinder to generate interest in being a part of a world. If I did, I would probably want to do much parsing down of different skills in a more pathfinder-like direction, and basically want to completely revamp their feats and their economy system for fantasy play. I.E. Spend more time and energy than I want to at this time.

My only point about the wizard as a prestige class, is that it is pretty obvious that, in the pathfinder world, as a result of having a number of different design philosophies present through its decade of support, there is a lot of question marks about what should have been a prestige class, and what should have been an archetype. How is a paladin less prestigious a class then the hellknight? (hint: its not, its that pathfinder was trying to support an existing game where the paladin existed and the hellknight did not, if there had been archetypes in pathfinder's inception the hell knight would have been either a paladin or fighter archetype.) Prestige classes are a super cool idea, but I agree with everyone who has posted that they don't really fit well into what pathfinder has become, with all of its different base classes and archetypes.

The wizard is not an innately magical person, but by level 20, they are the most (or at least one of the most) powerful characters in existence because they have the most flexible access to the most powerful element in the game: Spells. Wizardish prestige classes always feel flat, because you are going to be able to make a more exciting wizard character just by staying single class and inventing (or waiting for a developer to design) the spell that enables your character to do the one thing you were considering leaving the class to be able to do flavor-wise.

Maybe someone else will run with the D20 open content and make a great system that is more prestige class focused, but they will have to have great support for modules and adventures to capture people's attention. I think the prestige class ship has largely sailed from pathfinder.

I am not hating on the wizard, or on pathfinder, or the hellknight. I love this game. I just think it is rather arbitrary that the wizard is a base class available at level one, same as rogue or a fighter or other classes that clearly scream less training, which is what the prestige system seems like it was intended to demonstrate.

And I kind of love the idea that the prestige class wizard would be accomplishable from a magic-talent focused rogue learning basically how to break the rules of magic to gain access to spells without innate magical aptitude.


But you can accomplish exactly that via multiclassing. As a rogue I just learned gloom magic, I want to see what other magic I can learn... enters wizard class. The notion that a wizard requires years of specialized training is absurd. Read book. Wave wand. It might take a lifetime to master, like most things, but it's not hard to start.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Is it just me, or does it seem like wizard should have been a prestige class that was accessible for selecting at level 3 or 4.

As much as the paladin should be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It takes an elf decades to learn magic... unless he starts as a Rogue, and then switches to Wizard after one level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
VoodistMonk wrote:
But you can accomplish exactly that via multiclassing. As a rogue I just learned gloom magic, I want to see what other magic I can learn... enters wizard class. The notion that a wizard requires years of specialized training is absurd. Read book. Wave wand. It might take a lifetime to master, like most things, but it's not hard to start.

Voodist Monk, I believe your argument is why the designers have pretty much abandoned the prestige class for the archetype. In function, I think this is a fine choice to make, it is just a shame that it took pathfinder so long to come to that conclusion and end up with somewhat of a complicated mess of prestige classes that should have been archetypes, or even just traits or feats, and I think that, combined with desperately needing to clean up how spells and magic items work and work with each other, is why the developers have decided to start over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I understand where you are coming from. But does the wizard class actually require less training then others?

Barbarian - At first glance this seems like it has little to no training, until you realize they are proficient with all simple and martial weapons. Armor (light to med) and shields. There is apparently a substantual physical training regiment involved for them to get Fast Movement as well as the psychological "training" involved with the rage ability.

Bard - in addition to learning how to use magic without having any innate ability, they also have martial training and performing arts. Not to mention the shear exposure to information and knowledge that goes behind "bardic knowledge"

Clerics - I see no reason their training isn't just as extensive as wizards, given domain abilities, martial training and the ability to channel energy

Druids - This is the same as clerics except you either have to be self taught or learn via an oral tradition from another druid. Again, this class also doesn't require any innate magical skill.

Fighter - This is the same as barbarians except some of the training is a little different.

Monk - This class also seems to require extensive training to get to the abilities present at level 1.

Paladin - This is basically cleric + fighter in terms of training. The only reason it's not a flat addition of the two is that their spells are limited and they only channel energy through their hands/weapons instead of the air, via smite.

Ranger - This is basically druid + fighter, like the paladin it's not a flat addition because rangers don't mess with magic until later on.

Rogue - I would think that this class requires the least amount of training except for the large number of skill points they get. In addition to their limited martial training.

Sorcerer - This class seems to epitomize what you're talking about. There is little to no training when it comes to their magic, they have little to no martial training and they barely get any skill points. This class seems extremely disproportionate to the others in terms of training required.

Wizard - This is basically the same as the sorcerer except they don't get the benefit of having their magic be innate, so they do have to study and they actually get more skill points, suggesting more non-spell related training.

After going through all the base classes, Sorcerer is the only one that strikes me as something that doesn't require years of training to be at a 1st level skill level. Oddly enough, out of these classes they are the only one that gets magical ability innately. Everyone else is either "stealing" it from a god, from nature or from the air.


Lord Kailas, that is a really good comparison. Just by showing up, every class, sans sorcerer, shows a history of training just to be at level one. The wizard is in no way special in this, and doesn't even exemplify the idea that some classes require more training than others.


I always thought sorcerer's would still require a bit of training. Mostly to figure out how to control their magic and get consistent results. Less than wizards yes, but even the most talented need to develop their ability.


I've been toying with the idea that all the base PC classes would be low-entry-requirement quasi-prestige classes (unlike true prestige classes, not necessarily tied to a particular organization, with obvious exceptions for divine classes connected to deities and/or philosophies, and getting rid of the 0 hit dice property of creatures that currently have it. So everyone would start with at least 1 level of traditionally NPC class (for most Humanoids, these would be your racial hit dice, but would be a more interesting part of your build than such classes would be now), and build to enter a base class. Most commonly, campaigns would start with characters having already gotten past the traditionally NPC class stage and achieved 1 level of traditionally PC class, or in a few cases having achieved 2 levels of traditionally NPC class to set up some oddball build. This would have the added benefit of making 1st level a bit less swingy. But the option would exist to play out the start from true 1st level and questing to start down the path of becoming exceptional.


Eh. NPC classes are descriptive--they aren't really built to be chosen, especially in the case of commoner. Who would pick commoner over expert?


^These would be upgraded versions of traditionally NPC classes -- they would not only help flesh out background, but also give you initial proficiencies (not necessarily Pathfinder 2 style) and traits, including possibilities for getting combinations of traits that you wouldn't otherwise be able to get (this would usually mean more than 1 from what are now on the same trait list). They would also get you your entry qualifications for the traditionally PC classes.


I wouldn't do it, for gameplay reasons: Gating a class behind a level requirement (and likely limiting it to less than 20 levels) cuts down options for players. In my opinion most prestige classes should be replaced by base classes or archetypes. Third party publishers do that already, but Paizo also does, more or less openly (assassin to slayer, eldritch knight to magus, mystic theurge (arguably) to witch etc.).

The wizard's "years of training" don't mesh well with the rapid leveling up during adventuring - but Pathfinder is a game first and a simulation second.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the biggest drawbacks to only having base classes and archetypes is that you can't change directions mid-campaign.

For example, in a recent game I was playing a wizard and we had a really nasty experience with a trap. A trap that took my character from full HP to negatives below my con instantly (for a 10th level character). He survived thanks to a breath of life but it was a close call. My character vowed to not be taken off guard like that again, and so his next level was rogue and then he started to progress as an arcane trickster. It was a traumatic enough event that his alignment even shifted a bit.

I know other players who don't plan out their characters in advance and pick skills/feats/prestige classes as the game progresses in a way that makes sense with the character's journey.

Sure, there's always multi-classing, but unless it's decided that spell progression in class X stacks with spell progression in class Y, you'll be severely penalized for branching out of your main class as a spell caster.


As you should be. If a lifetime carpenter decides to be a racecar driver, his experience in one doesn't help the other, and he isn't the best at either.

That's how it works.

A generalist will NEVER exceed a specialist in the specialist's field.

Why would anyone's spells count towards anyone else's unless all the magic is the exact same, which it's not because there are different lists for good reasons.

Changing your character all willy nilly is silly. Like a fat kid in a candy store, or asking a toddler what they want to wear. Today I want to be Batman, tomorrow I thunk I will be a Dragon, and Thursday I thunk I will be an astronaut... pick something already.

If you didn't have a decent game plan for your character at the beginning, then it's no one's fault but your own when your character turns out subpar or doesn't live up to your expectations... but seriously, what expectations can you possibly have for a character if you didn't have him or her planned to some degree?


VoodistMonk wrote:

As you should be. If a lifetime carpenter decides to be a racecar driver, his experience in one doesn't help the other, and he isn't the best at either.

That's how it works.

A generalist will NEVER exceed a specialist in the specialist's field.

Why would anyone's spells count towards anyone else's unless all the magic is the exact same, which it's not because there are different lists for good reasons.

Changing your character all willy nilly is silly. Like a fat kid in a candy store, or asking a toddler what they want to wear. Today I want to be Batman, tomorrow I thunk I will be a Dragon, and Thursday I thunk I will be an astronaut... pick something already.

If you didn't have a decent game plan for your character at the beginning, then it's no one's fault but your own when your character turns out subpar or doesn't live up to your expectations... but seriously, what expectations can you possibly have for a character if you didn't have him or her planned to some degree?

no, I'm talking more like the lifetime carpenter decides they want to specialize in making rocking horses, but they can't since they didn't decide to exclusively build rocking horses when they first picked up a hammer.

In my example above, there would in theory be an arcane trickster archetype, so that style of character is still an option. However, it doesn't make sense to take an archetype at 10th level that suddenly swaps out half my abilities for rogue abilities. So the character is SOL. Sure I could take some levels in rogue, but It will never the be same as the arcane trickster even though (in this example) it's just an archetype of a class the character already is.


I have an overall distrust and general loathing of prestige classes for that very reason.


dunno, back in 3.5 before the invention of archetypes and weird new classes, PrC's made sense, they were a path for unusual and powerful abilities not typical of any class... they still do make some sense... because, sorry, but witch may be polyvalent, but it does not substitute well for a full wizard/cleric mystic theurge... and don't start me on dragon disciple... I'll grant that the slayer is a fair replacement for the Assassin, but only because the Assassin PrC was nerfed by Paizo when they took away its spells... there are any number of PrC's in the 3.5 books that have charm and make some sense (ok, the greenstar adept still doesn't make any)... the main disad to PrC's, is the amount of optimisation in the char build they require to be taken as early as possible.


Most prestige classes can easily be entered at level 6 by multiclassing/dipping/whatever only two classes. How optimized that combination ends up is completely dependent on what you're after.

But they don't require optimization to enter. You can combine two horrible classes that don't support each other's abilities in the slightest, are dependent on different stats, and do not bolster saving throws in any coherent manner but still allow you to meet the prerequisites for a prestige class.

You can also make absolute monsters if you are smart about it, but I would WAY rather gestalt than prestige. Most prestige classes end up being pretty niche, and I think you would end up with a much more versatile and helpful and fun character just gestalting the two classes you multiclassed between to get to the prestige class in the first place.


I might have misspoken... a character optimized to enter a given PrC may not be optimized in the common meaning of the term, but fact is that going for a given PrC demands you build your character from scratch especially for the purpose.

About gestalt, I love it, but gestalting does not preclude prestiging, for instance my mage/psion gestalt might take some PrC other than cerebromancer at some point...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Wildly unpopular opinions - wizard should have been a prestige class All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion