|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know a lot of people dislike prestige classes for different reasons. Either they weren't worth it mechanically or their bonuses didn't compare with going 20 levels in a single class or that archetypes for the most part get rid of needing to wait 7+ levels for the benefits a prestige class might offer. But I still think they are really cool and I'm sad that they haven't had any support in what seems like forever.
Especially if it had some really great flavor behind it, like the Hellknights, Riftwardens or any of the Pathfinder prestige classes, or if they had a really awesome theme, like Dragon Disciple (I do still see a Dragon Disciple on occassion in PFS, although they have mostly been replaced with Bloodragers). It was just kind of fun to me to work towards some kind of goal or to see a player get really invested in an organization and get access to special training. I understand why they are no longer popular (Archetypes are much better in nearly every way) but still.
There is nothing stopping a player from taking a prestige class, but very, very rarely do you see it happen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I miss them in a sense.
As of now, with archetypes it's hard to lose progression, and some classes have innate progression tied into them that a prestige class needs to advance directly (alchemist's extracts, druid's animal companions, and others) which make general prestige classes more difficult due to these class features.
What this tends to do is lead to focused prestige classes (master chymist for one) that fulfill a certain narrative role, but only that one. I mean, that's what prestige classes were intended to do, but that narrative role has been usurped by archetypes.
I know Paizo seems to be on the side of 'taking a prestige class is joining an organization' which aligns with a few of the ones you mentioned above. To me that creates problems:
1. If the prestige class is really good, everyone's going to want to belong to that group, regardless of flavor.
2. If that prestige class is really bad, even the members of the group aren't likely to take it.
I'd like to see more prestige classes in the 3.5 tradition of 'just something interesting' rather than group membership myself, Paths of Prestige got a few of them, but it doesn't seem like main line we'll be getting many more.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never did 3.0 or 3.5 a lot, and I know Prestige Classes were more common then...but how can you miss something that's still very much around?
There are several prestige classes that still see a bunch of use, or at least should. They're not ubiquitous, but if you like them there are a number that are definitely worthwhile and create useful and effective characters.
Archetypes are cool and provide some of the same feel (though really, they're more like AD&D Kits, which is awesome)...but Prestige Classes still exist and do some very cool stuff that archetypes don't.
I also wish the prestige classes had more reason to use them. There are only a few that are actually worth dipping into. And one of those, Red Mantis Assassin, requires a character to be LE which eliminates it from PFS and quite a few home campaigns.
I agree, but I'd go so far as to say I missed them in 3.5 and 3rd edition, too.
Yeah, they got a little use then, more than they do now. But in all the years since 3.0 hit the shelves, I've had exactly one player take levels in a prestige class. For comparison, during that time, I've gamed with 6 groups of players with about 6 people in each, plus a few people rotating in/out of those groups, so maybe a total of 50 people, though that seems a bit high. Certainly 40 people.
So if only 1 person in 40 is using them (and that was pre-Pathfinder), they definitely seem under-utilized.
The idea is a good one. If you are good at what you do (you have a few levels and meet some appropriate prerequisites), then you can gain levels of a prestigious class. The PrC should be something that is slightly better than what you could be without meeting the prerequisites - if not, then why bother with all those prerequisites; just ignore the prerequisites and the PrC and be just as good. So it should be a little better, but not a lot better or EVERYBODY will do it. So just a little better.
That said, "a little better" doesn't mean more powerful. It could mean more versatile, or more influential, or plain old more interesting. But it should be better in some tangible way, to attract people to the PrC in the first place.
That's where they failed.
Only a few of them have been tangibly better. Most are not. And since you have to go through hoops to get them in the first place, even some that are slightly better aren't always worth the effort to meet the prerequisites - which often means giving up skill ranks or feats to spend those on something you don't want, so you're sacrificing character power/utility to meet the prerequisites but often don't gain enough to make it worth it.
Now in Pathfinder you must give up your Favored Class Bonus as well. More sacrifice for the same little, or no, gain. I've house ruled that you get to keep your FCB as long as the prestige class is related to your favored class but still nobody takes them.
It would have been nice to see them designed better, balanced and attractive, so that players would want to use them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. My experience with 3.X prestige classes was pretty much the opposite of DM Blake's - I saw them in use constantly, sometimes to the point of the entire party having prestige classes.
in part because most 3.X base classes were really lacklaster (and/or extremely front-loaded), so you were way, way better off having a prestige class that gave you more toys and also advanced whatever few things from your base class that actually mattered (like your spellcasting). (One amusing example of prestige class use - one of the clerics managed to take the 1st level of like 7 different prestige classes, and did that because she got a new domain with each one she took.)
So character design was basically "pick the prestige class you're after, and then pick the class that will help you reach that prestige class fastest."
I see them far, far less nowadays - archetypes have more or less replaced the role that prestige classes had in 3.X, and one of Pathfinder's goals was to make the base classes themselves much more appealing.
(Hell, one of the things that really stood out to me when I browsed the Pathfinder CRB for the first time was that the base classes were actually worth staying with.)
Prestige classes still get used in my group, but it's usually just a single PC in the entire party, if any.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem was that prestige classes are much harder to design and balance. (I have suggestions at the end)
First is internal balance. If it gives too much at low level, it's only going to make people dip. If it doesn't give enough at low levels, nobody's going to go into it for long enough to get the later stuff.
Then there's external balance. There's always a certain amount it takes to get a prestige class. So they try to balance it for those levels. Of course somebody might not take the optimized route, so they end up underpowered for those that get in late.
Finally there's the issue of how focused they are. If they are too focused, then they rely on one class and might as well be an archetype. If they are too widespread, then they can be taken by anybody, but you then have to consider how everybody deals with it. Some of the prestige classes may work well with original classes, but then become a problem when combined with a new class.
My suggestion is more mini-archetypes. Archetypes that don't change as much and can be more easily layered. If they only affect certain levels of power, then you can essentially have different bands of archetypes.
I think the main thing that archetypes cannot convey is that prestige classes were something you actually earned and worked towards and the payoff was worth the cost. My favorite pen and paper character in any RPG was a Stormlord of Talos. I absolutely loved playing that prestige class because you had to earn it and it gave such wonderful chances to role play as a worshipped of the god of storms.
You just do not have that sense of accomplishment or role play flavor with archetypes. You are not a specialist, you are not actually special and you lack any of the game mechanics to make your character better plus losing the role play flavor.
If there is anything Paizo should do to the game IMO it should be reworking all prestige classes to actually make them worthwhile to players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally run right out and buy a book of prestige classes if they followed this format:
Some prerequisites
Class features: continue progress in your own class AND get the following:
a few small beneficial class features that make you slightly better but not a lot better
Restrictions: optional, but maybe the PrC has a code of conduct or something that helps keep it balanced.
Alternatively, a PrC could trade an existing class feature for a better one.
Again, the key is slightly better, not a lot better, so that the PrC is attractive and worth meeting the prerequisites, but a small enough bump that anyone just going 20 levels in a core class won't be left behind.
I do wish they would do more Prestige Classes, especially as they have newer mechanics which poorly integrate into many existing prestige classes (ex. psychic magic).
That said, as I recall there is a preference to use archtypes for mechanics and to use prestige classes instead to represent flavor where additional mechanics are required to properly portray the effect of the role (ex. Grey Gardeners or Hellknights). Think it was quote from James Jacobs, but I'm not finding it now.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish they would do more Prestige Classes, especially as they have newer mechanics which poorly integrate into many existing prestige classes (ex. psychic magic).
That said, as I recall there is a preference to use archtypes for mechanics and to use prestige classes instead to represent flavor where additional mechanics are required to properly portray the effect of the role (ex. Grey Gardeners or Hellknights). Think it was quote from James Jacobs, but I'm not finding it now.
I doubt that quote is from me. I actually prefer prestige classes IMMENSELY to archetypes, as a prestige class is something that you have to earn during play by focusing a character in one way, but also because they're so much more adaptable and can be taken by all sorts of characters rather than just by one class. The fact that prestige classes also often make excellent options for monsters who can often automatically qualify for the class makes them even more useful and interesting to me.
That said, I also think that prestige classes are MUCH more interesting and valuable when they're able to represent in-world things. A Hellknight is more interesting than a blackguard, and a Red Mantis Assassin more interesting than just an assassin. Since our hardcovers avoid world content, I suppose it's for the best that the bulk of the prestige classes we have done have appeared in the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Campaign Settings, and Player's Companions.
|
|
Going more in line with Organization or More focused paths for prestige classes. If the character is RPing something specific or has some sort of goal in mind that is in line with a prestige class but doing so is at a detriment to his actual class and play then i will just grant them free levels of the prestige class without adding extra HD or saves. I would grant the bonus on a level up and for saves and HD amount i let him choose which one he wants to take and he just gains the bonuses of both his class and the prestige class. I have found it does not greatly unbalance play and allows for some more interesting characters and combinations. But it is on a case by case basis and similar abilities do not stack. Ex. playing a rouge and getting the assassin P.class you would not gain the bonus sneak attack damage from both classes, just from one.
I do wish they would do more Prestige Classes, especially as they have newer mechanics which poorly integrate into many existing prestige classes (ex. psychic magic).
That said, as I recall there is a preference to use archtypes for mechanics and to use prestige classes instead to represent flavor where additional mechanics are required to properly portray the effect of the role (ex. Grey Gardeners or Hellknights). Think it was quote from James Jacobs, but I'm not finding it now.
I doubt that quote is from me. I actually prefer prestige classes IMMENSELY to archetypes, as a prestige class is something that you have to earn during play by focusing a character in one way, but also because they're so much more adaptable and can be taken by all sorts of characters rather than just by one class. The fact that prestige classes also often make excellent options for monsters who can often automatically qualify for the class makes them even more useful and interesting to me.
That said, I also think that prestige classes are MUCH more interesting and valuable when they're able to represent in-world things. A Hellknight is more interesting than a blackguard, and a Red Mantis Assassin more interesting than just an assassin. Since our hardcovers avoid world content, I suppose it's for the best that the bulk of the prestige classes we have done have appeared in the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Campaign Settings, and Player's Companions.
If you do mind my asking why then are the prestige classes in the vast majority of cases simply inferior mechanically to regular classes? There are only a few prestige classes that I would argue are worth actually dipping or fully levelling into.
I agree with you that prestige classes should be earned and should have a flavor that is unique to them but unlike 3.5 the prestige classes just aren't worth the investure. Is there any chance of making newer prestige classes mechanically more feasible? Even if it just readding the favored class bonus?
|
|
What would be interesting would be to combine the prestige class and archetype concepts. That is, have the prestige class levels modify rather than replace existing classes.
So, maybe an 'Eldritch Knight' type 'prestige archetype' would treat each level as another level of Wizard, but grant you full BAB and d10 hit die in exchange for losing all bonus feats and one spell per day of each level. Or whatever.
Could get complicated because you'd either need to limit it to specific classes to modify or have separate options removed for each modified class (we have already seen that with some archetypes that apply to both original and unchained classes). Would also need to either avoid or have ways to handle the possibility of a removed class option being something the character had already earned before they took the prestige archetype.
Still, could definitely be developed as a way to swap specific abilities for various classes rather than swapping out the class entirely.
A more free-form version would be 'give up class ability X for Y feats' and 'add prestige ability A for B feats'. Then you'd just have lists of options to add/remove with the feat costs for each and people could mix and match.
|
I really like the vibe of prestige classes - and I do like that the feel of earning your way in.
However - as some others have mentioned - they make the game exponentially harder to balance.
If you have Prestige Class of coolness (I'll refer to as "A"), which can solidly be taken by classes 1, 2, & 3. This means that character A1, A2, & A3 need to be reasonably balanced. They also need to be reasonably balanced with characters who remain straight 1, 2, & 3 (the mistake 3.x made).
In addition - when designing class 4 for which prestige A is a viable choice, you have to balance 4 not only against 1, 2, & 3, but you need to balance 4A against all of them too.
So - like most customization options - it adds another massive layer to balance attempts.
Secondary is that some of the 3.x prestiges had awkward requirements to balance them being really good. So - once you got in you were okay, but to get in you were gimping your character for a few levels.
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you do mind my asking why then are the prestige classes in the vast majority of cases simply inferior mechanically to regular classes? There are only a few prestige classes that I would argue are worth actually dipping or fully levelling into.
Because of a difference in design philosophy between myself and the design team.
One of the major design philosophies of Pathfinder was to encourage players to stick with one class all the way through to level 20, due to a perception at the time that in 3.5's rules, it was too tempting and too GOOD to dip into other classes and multiclass all over the place.
Prestige classes were sort of caught in that philosophy, for better or worse, and as a result, they tend to be designed in Pathfinder to NOT give a noticeable boost in power in an attempt to not make it the "obvious choice" away from sticking with a class and not multiclassing.
It's worth remembering that at the time we started Pathfinder, the 3.5 rules had a fair number of VERY different takes and themes, and at that time, a LOT of folks were exhausted by the glut of prestige classes and the power creep that was slinking into the game. Ramping back on the power of prestige classes AND presenting a tiny fraction of them rather than dozens of them was a deliberate attempt to refocus the game in a direction that we, and a LOT of the customers, wanted.
It's also worth remembering that in the early days of 3rd edition, there was a design philosophy to NEVER create a new base class, and that the only design space available for folks to build "new classes" was to be prestige classes. Eventually, well into 3.5, that philosophy went away as new base classes were increasingly introduced. The initial philosophy of never doing more base classes was never a part of Pathfinder; we knew from the start we wanted things like witches and alchemists, and so the shifting of attention away from large numbers of powerful prestige classes was intentional there as well; we didn't want to distract folks from new base classes.
That was all ten years ago, of course, and today, I think the pendulum has swung in the other direction. We've got LOTS of base classes and hundreds and hundreds of variants in the form of archetypes, and now you're seeing folks starting to want what we've more or less left behind with prestige classes, I guess, but at this point, the momentum of Pathfinder has kind of moved away from heavy prestige class support.
For what it's worth, there were entirely too many prestige classes in 3.5. :-)
3.5 definitely was too far in the other direction, classes were basically designed to be exited as soon as possible.
But I really think Pathfinder is too far the other way. The only PrCs I ever see used are ones that really are barely PrCs in the first place and I don't think I've seen a single dip into another base class ever as long as I've been playing PF.
I don't really get the 'momentum' argument though. Seems like it wouldn't be hard to make some decent PrCs and stuff them into a new book.
I agree, but I'd go so far as to say I missed them in 3.5 and 3rd edition, too.
Yeah, they got a little use then, more than they do now. But in all the years since 3.0 hit the shelves, I've had exactly one player take levels in a prestige class. For comparison, during that time, I've gamed with 6 groups of players with about 6 people in each, plus a few people rotating in/out of those groups, so maybe a total of 50 people, though that seems a bit high. Certainly 40 people.
So if only 1 person in 40 is using them (and that was pre-Pathfinder), they definitely seem under-utilized.
I used them in D&D 3.5. My 11th-level elf cleric became an Arcane Archer, despite having to take one level of wizard first to qualify. I also had a D&D 3.5 human cleric/ranger/rogue working toward the Exemplar prestige class, though the campaign ended before he met the prerequisites.
In my Pathfinder Rise of the Runelords campaign, one rogue became a Duelist and the bard/wizard became a Lore Master.
The bard/wizard had been roleplayed as a scholar all along, so becoming a Lore Master was a natural progression. In contrast, the rogue became a duelist because his roguish tactics were too dangerous. He used to step behind the enemy front line to flank them, putting him in easy reach of the other enemies.
My elf cleric became an arcane archer as a way to return to his roots. The character started as a high-Dex elf who fought with archery and cast spells only before and after combat. He also was good at Hide and Move Silently due to his dexterity and the whole party became stealthy. And the cleric abandoned archery once his spells overshadowed his bow in combat. But buying cross-class stealth skills was costly in the long run, so he returned to archery as an arcane archer in order to have a class where Hide and Move Silently were not cross-class.
When I play a character, they often change their life goals due to their life experiences. Because D&D 3.5 penalized multiclassing, Prestige Classes were the only effective way to change their class to reflect their new goals.
I have been GMing more than playing lately, so I have not played a Pathfinder character with new goals. Pathfinder does not penalize multiclassing nor cross-class skills, so perhaps I could accommodate such a character without a prestige class.
If you do mind my asking why then are the prestige classes in the vast majority of cases simply inferior mechanically to regular classes? There are only a few prestige classes that I would argue are worth actually dipping or fully levelling into.
Because of a difference in design philosophy between myself and the design team.
One of the major design philosophies of Pathfinder was to encourage players to stick with one class all the way through to level 20, due to a perception at the time that in 3.5's rules, it was too tempting and too GOOD to dip into other classes and multiclass all over the place.
Prestige classes were sort of caught in that philosophy, for better or worse, and as a result, they tend to be designed in Pathfinder to NOT give a noticeable boost in power in an attempt to not make it the "obvious choice" away from sticking with a class and not multiclassing.
It's worth remembering that at the time we started Pathfinder, the 3.5 rules had a fair number of VERY different takes and themes, and at that time, a LOT of folks were exhausted by the glut of prestige classes and the power creep that was slinking into the game. Ramping back on the power of prestige classes AND presenting a tiny fraction of them rather than dozens of them was a deliberate attempt to refocus the game in a direction that we, and a LOT of the customers, wanted.
It's also worth remembering that in the early days of 3rd edition, there was a design philosophy to NEVER create a new base class, and that the only design space available for folks to build "new classes" was to be prestige classes. Eventually, well into 3.5, that philosophy went away as new base classes were increasingly introduced. The initial philosophy of never doing more base classes was never a part of Pathfinder; we knew from the start we wanted things like witches and alchemists, and so the shifting of attention away from large numbers of powerful prestige classes was intentional there as well; we didn't want to...
Thank you for the response. I absolutely remember those days when base classes were simply the means to the end in terms of picking the prestige class that most closely matched what you wanted in terms of a character. I can say with some surety of a general consensus that Pathfinder has more than successfully turned away from that dynamic and into one that lets you, the player, build what you want from gobs and gobs of base classes and archetypes.
But as you said the pendulum has swung too far in other direction: from 3.5 you essentially had no choice BUT to point a character towards a prestige class. In Pathfinder the prestige classes are far removed from "best spec ever" that there's no need to pick them.
I have to think a balance can be reached to provide a rich, themetic flavored prestige class that also mechanically can offer the player a viable choice. If you REALLY want to be a Red Mantis Assassin or a Hellknight or (this is just my suggestion for a prestige class) a Risen Guard from Osirion then here is the prestige class just for that.
The one thing that was annoying about 3.5 prestige classes was that they made you have to plan out your entire character, from level 1 to level 20, if you wanted to qualify for more than just one of them.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that was annoying about 3.5 prestige classes was that they made you have to plan out your entire character, from level 1 to level 20, if you wanted to qualify for more than just one of them.
What you call a flaw I call a feature. Prestige classes, to me, are prestigious. They're "rewards" that you earn for devoting yourself to a specific path. Seeking to join/pursue multiple prestigious paths doesn't make sense to me, really, since that's kind of the opposite of focusing to be good at one thing. So, for me at least, the fact that it was tough to qualify for multiple prestige classes was/is a good thing.
I doubt that quote is from me. I actually prefer prestige classes IMMENSELY to archetypes...I do wish they would do more Prestige Classes, especially as they have newer mechanics which poorly integrate into many existing prestige classes (ex. psychic magic).
That said, as I recall there is a preference to use archtypes for mechanics and to use prestige classes instead to represent flavor where additional mechanics are required to properly portray the effect of the role (ex. Grey Gardeners or Hellknights). Think it was quote from James Jacobs, but I'm not finding it now.
That said, I also think that prestige classes are MUCH more interesting and valuable when they're able to represent in-world things.
That's what I was trying to convey. Apologies for mucking it up. I think maybe I had seen you discussing your views on prestige classes and someone else on the design team's views on archtypes and concatenated them together in my head.
Thanks for the added insight, though :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally run right out and buy a book of prestige classes if they followed this format:
Some prerequisites
Class features: continue progress in your own class AND get the following:
a few small beneficial class features that make you slightly better but not a lot better
Restrictions: optional, but maybe the PrC has a code of conduct or something that helps keep it balanced.Alternatively, a PrC could trade an existing class feature for a better one.
Again, the key is slightly better, not a lot better, so that the PrC is attractive and worth meeting the prerequisites, but a small enough bump that anyone just going 20 levels in a core class won't be left behind.
We do have a mechanic for that: the aligned class, introduced in the Evangelist prestige class. I would really like to see more prestige classes that make use of that concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The VMC mechanic would be another way to accomplish a similar result for players who would rather keep the BAB, save bonuses, skill progression, and so forth of their original class. Basically, the character would be committed to giving up five of their feats to get a package of abilities that are more powerful but less flexible than what they are likely to get from those five feats.
The one thing that was annoying about 3.5 prestige classes was that they made you have to plan out your entire character, from level 1 to level 20, if you wanted to qualify for more than just one of them.
That misses IMO the entire point of what a PRESTIGE class is supposed to be. You are a unique, special handful of whatever you are representing and your character made choices and sacrifices to reach that pinnacle. As a reward mechancially you got unique and kinda awesome spells/feats/abilities etc for doing your due diligence as a player/character.
As I mentioned in another post my all time favorite pen and paper character was a Stormlord of Talos prestige class. I planned out my cleric and when I got to be the prestige class...oh boy. It was awesome fun to have that kind of abilities coupled with the pure role play joy of being a special warrior of a god of storms. THAT is what I sorely miss from so many prestige classes in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige classes should be better than the base classes they derive from.
This is in alignment with James' post that one needed to earn their way into a PrC. The problem is that most of the PrC's are worse than the bases classes they build off of.
Enter the archetypes, and then hybrid classes, which attempted to do the same thing but without being as clunky or restrictive.
I LIKE PrC's having steep pre-reqs, but I'm not willing to meet those if the class ends up making me weaker than if I had simply stayed in my primary class, with a 1-2 level dip to qualify.
VMC has some good combinations, and a lot that simply aren't worth it, which leaves you traditional multi-classing (also often bad), gestalting (too OP), or new archetypes and hybrid classes.
PrCs should be redesigned with the new hybrid classes, Unchained, and archetypes in mind, and offer something better if you qualify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that was annoying about 3.5 prestige classes was that they made you have to plan out your entire character, from level 1 to level 20, if you wanted to qualify for more than just one of them.
That misses IMO the entire point of what a PRESTIGE class is supposed to be. You are a unique, special handful of whatever you are representing and your character made choices and sacrifices to reach that pinnacle. As a reward mechancially you got unique and kinda awesome spells/feats/abilities etc for doing your due diligence as a player/character.
As I mentioned in another post my all time favorite pen and paper character was a Stormlord of Talos prestige class. I planned out my cleric and when I got to be the prestige class...oh boy. It was awesome fun to have that kind of abilities coupled with the pure role play joy of being a special warrior of a god of storms. THAT is what I sorely miss from so many prestige classes in Pathfinder.
James Jacob himself confirmed Grond's view. Yet my use of prestige classes went contrary to it. The aspect I like most about prestige classes--a good way for a character to train in a new direction--was not an intended use.
Take a look at how my elf cleric archer qualified for D&D 3.5 Arcane Archer.
Race: Elf or Half-elf
Yes, he was an elf for the Dexterity bonus to be a better archer. That fit.
Base Attack Bonus: +6.
This implies a full BAB class, such as a ranger. However, cleric qualifies after 8th level.
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow or shortbow).
My cleric was a former archer for levels 1 through 4, during which he had learned Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. At 9th level, he took Weapon Focus (longbow) solely to qualify for arcane archer.
Spells: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.
Wizard was a favored class for elves, so my cleric could multiclass to wizard without penalty. Thus, he took one level of wizard to learn arcane spells. The Pathfinder version of arcane archer says, "At the indicated levels, an arcane archer gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class," but the Dungeons & Dragons version cut off the spell progression entirely so my cleric never learned another arcane spell. And the other abilities say only "spell" not "arcane spell," so my cleric imbued arrows with divine spells.
All that the D&D 3.5 Arcane Archer wanted was a good elf archer who could cast 1st-level arcane spells. That did not seem particularly unique.
But I did roleplay my cleric learning wizardry and arcane archery as returning to his elvish roots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some prerequisites
Class features: continue progress in your own class AND get the following:
a few small beneficial class features that make you slightly better but not a lot better
Restrictions: optional, but maybe the PrC has a code of conduct or something that helps keep it balanced.
A code of conduct is a poor balancing mechanism. In some games it will be a huge restriction, in others it will be almost no restriction.
|
|
Wow. People seem really down on Prestige Classes in Pathfinder. I mean, only a few are worth dipping into? Really? There are some exceedingly shiny prestige Classes out there. A quick list:
Arcane Trickster just got really nice recently. You can now dip one level of Rogue, take a Feat for another d6 of Sneak attack and enter it at level 5. You are now a Wizard with a single level of delayed spellcasting, but extra skills, Sneak Attack, and the ability to disarm traps telekinetically. And the other goodies Arcane Trickster grants.
Master Chymist is and always has been an excellent route to go as a Mutagen focused melee Alchemist. Tripling your daily Mutagens is shiny, and Full BAB isn't too shabby either. A lot of people will stop after 3 levels, but it's still solid.
Holy Vindicator does some very cool stuff for melee Cleric builds.
Mammoth Lord is wonderful if you have a mount, don't cast spells, and you're gonna be outside a lot. That's gonna vary by campaign, but it's definitely a viable and effective option.
The Paladin of Irori is tricky to qualify for, but borders on broken once it gets going. What amounts to as many Smites a day as you like, targeting Evil or Chaos (your choice) is a hell of a thing.
Evangelist actually does what was discussed above and advances your existing Class Features. So...that's awesome. It loses you one level of them, but still.
And every Prestige Class that gives a Caster Level every level (and there are several, Cyphermage and Envoy of Balance leaping to mind) is obviously good if its abilities are at all on par with those of, say Wizard (and frankly, they're mostly better).
That's all more-or-less off the top of my head, mind you.
I...really can't think how you can make Prestige Classes better than the high end of the Pathfinder Prestige Classes without almost forcing everyone to take them...which is exactly what happened in 3.0 and 3.5 and not fun at all for new players. So...let's avoid that, shall we?
Prestige classes have taken a drop in power from 3rd to Pathfinder. I have been rereading some 3rd ed prestige classes and have noticed they offer significantly more power then Pathfinder Prestige classes.
Now there a couple worth taking for a couple of levels depending on what you are trying to do.
it's not so much that PrCs are that much weaker. You don't have the broken ones that abounded in 3.5, but also it's base classes don't suck they way they used to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It basically goes into how prestige classes are incompatible with how Pathfinder classes are designed. Abilities are balanced/designed by class level, so prestige classes are balanced from 6-X since 6 is the normal entry level going to the end. The issue is coming out of a prestige class. If you take a 10 level prestige class, coming out of it you take level 16, but are getting level 6 power abilities if you continue your class, less if you multiclass.
The 'easy' fix to this is to make it so that you only ever have to take levels in your prestige class after you start it. For example, rather than have only 10 levels of mystic theurge, there should be 14, so that if you start it at level 7 (the earliest that you can), you can take only mystic theurge levels after that. This should remove at least most of the balance problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss Prestige Classes.
It is nice to be able to keep on taking base classes and not feel weakened and disadvantaged. I like that.
But it is bad that i cant take PrCs without knowing i give up much more then i gain, especially if it involves some core abilities of the class i come from. Sometimes even to the effect that it would be very bad to keep on spending actions in using the now obsolent abilities. For example at level 10 there are now so many interesting thigs to do with my swift action, that i cant keep on spending it for +1 to damage for 1 round , 5 times a day. For example.
The pendulum has swung 100% in the other direction. Now sometimes i'd like to take one for the classe's background, but would feel weakened and disadvantaged. Fulfill requirements and pay the price, but then get less then had i stayed pure baseclass, and the entryfee is still gone.
It would be nice if there were more PrestigeClasses that were worth taking if your char fits theri fluff. Without becoming weaker when finally getting to your "prestige"! It was nice working towards a goal and finally getting it.
.. without almost forcing everyone to take them... let's avoid that, shall we?
But now almost everybody is "forced" into keeping on taking baseclass levels. Same thing, just in green.
It basically goes into how prestige classes are incompatible with how Pathfinder classes are designed. Abilities are balanced/designed by class level, so prestige classes are balanced from 6-X since 6 is the normal entry level going to the end. The issue is coming out of a prestige class. If you take a 10 level prestige class, coming out of it you take level 16, but are getting level 6 power abilities if you continue your class, less if you multiclass.The 'easy' fix to this is to make it so that you only ever have to take levels in your prestige class after you start it. For example, rather than have only 10 levels of mystic theurge, there should be 14, so that if you start it at level 7 (the earliest that you can), you can take only mystic theurge levels after that. This should remove at least most of the balance problem.
This is sort of how I would do it, but I think the simplest way to handle it would just be hard-coding the point of entry for all prestige classes at level 11. Then it should be a relatively simple matter to keep them 'balanced' with level 11-20 abilities to at least the level that base classes are.
if you have to wait till lv11 then they very rarely get to see play. They did a study that most games end before lv 12-16 or something. PFS mostly goes to lv12. This all means that something lv11+ is something that gets a lot less use from players. That's why 6 is the entry now.
I'm sad that they haven't had any support in what seems like forever.
According to d20PFSRD there are 89 (!) prestige classes from Paizo. It's not like they don't offer them, but according to ACG they want them only for a niche (anymore?): Highly focused concepts. And there are many good reasons in favor of archetypes:
* Your choice matters earlier.
* An archetype allows more concepts.
* You aren't forced into (sometimes questionable) prerequisites.
* You get a steady rise in power.
* It's easier to pick from x archetypes than from all prestige classes.
I see only three mediocre reasons in favor of prestige classes:
* You might want exactly that focused concept, maybe inspired by the class.
* You feel rewarded by achieving to enter and finish the class.
* Dipping such a class can be useful for powergaming.
I actually quite like the prestige classes as they are, and there aren't many that I wouldn't like to try at some stage. Each one has enough flavour that they almost immediately inspire at least one character concept for me. Of course, they might not necessarily be characters I'd like to be as a PC (Prophet of Kalistrade, I'm looking at you), but most of them would make fun and memorable NPCs if nothing else.
Particularly for 'boring' classes like wizard or cleric where the main class features are spells, there's practically no reason not to spice up the character with a prestige class. Likewise, while archetypes do fill a useful role, some classes have particularly limited scope for archetype design (again Wizard and Cleric are big offenders), so prestige classes are an easy way to inject more flavour. To round it off, prestige classes are a way to get access to some abilities you'd like but there aren't archetypes for and/or the abilities come too late to be useful. Gray Gardener is one of the best examples for this, combining some of the distinctive aspects of both inquisitor and rogue while only slightly disrupting divine spell progression.
As it's been mentioned, since most campaigns don't go the whole way to 20, the capstones of a prestige class do become more of a thing. Level 16 might be getting you a fun ability in a base class, but that's enough to get to get the capstone or at least the penultimate ability of a prestige class, at which point they start looking much better (Cleric channel energy 8d6 vs DR5/Chaotic, poison immunity and 100 ft telepathy from Hellknight Signifier is an easy choice).
All of that said, I'd like to see some support for getting the new occult classes prestige classes, or at least reworking some of the older ones with them in mind. Arcane trickster feels like it should work with psychic magic, Loremaster could have support for Occultists, Dragon Disciple would be awesome for kineticists and Mesmerists would fit Razmiran Priest to a T.
PrCs suffer the same effect that multiclassing suffers. The original class's scaling powers don't scale, and thus don't keep up with the needs of the campaign.
Some classes have things to mitigate that, usually in the form of feats. I can get 2 caster levels as a trait, Boon Companion for 4 levels of that, Shapeshifting Hunter to add druid levels to ranger levels for favored enemy, Monastic Legacy helps out on unarmed strikes for monks. So you have to expend more precious resources (feats) to regain a little of what you loose by taking levels in anything other than your first class.
What does multiclassing give you?
It gives you abilities you never had before.
It gives you a new direction to focus in.
It helps you enter some PrCs.
What does PrCs give you?
Exclusivity -- you are a member of a rare class of folks.
Special powers no regular class can get.
Focus on a single feature for greater power there and less power elsewhere.
What actually happens:
For each level not in the original class, I fail to get any of the scaling features.
I loose out on the FCB.
I gain little actual power.
[I get 1st level abilities when everyone else is getting higher ones.]
What about archetypes?
They are great if you know *ahead of time* what your character will do at level 20.
What about VMC?
I must choose this at first level also, and fix my character's path for 20 levels. I do get some flavor, but little real ability of the other class.
When you play an AP, you know where your character will be when you reach the end. You *can* plan levels 1-20. In homebrew, you cannot.
So where did it go wrong?
Scaling powers. [my opinion.] We saw this before with the mantra never give up caster levels for any full caster. Because caster level was a scaling feature.
This locks you into a mindset of a single class. It prevents you from changing direction into a new area. In 3.X, if your home campaign went in an unexpected direction, you could pick up levels in another class or PrC and gain new tricks for your bag of tricks, without loosing your effectiveness with existing tricks. In 3.X, PrCs that advanced caster levels usually also advanced level of castable spells, so you kept the main scaling feature of a caster. In PF, it is similar, which is why PF PrCs that continue caster progression are not considered a waste. But if you value any other scaling ability, you need a way to keep it going, and PF offers very little in that way. WHW, and Evangelist do so, and so they are considered OK. Very few others do.
For actual play, I like being able to add different unexpected tricks to my skill set. But PF penalizes me for doing it. Since my crew is not heavy optimizers, I can play a weaker character and still contribute. But I need to optimize more than others to keep up. In 2E, I multiclassed. In 3.X, I multiclassed and PrCed. In 4th, I multiclassed as well. In PF I am multiclassed. I like that uniqueness for my characters.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a Ranger/Cleric/Skyseeker character in a Giantslayer campaign, my first character in 7 years of playing Pathfinder to take a prestige class.
Prestige classes, to me, are prestigious. They're "rewards" that you earn for devoting yourself to a specific path. Seeking to join/pursue multiple prestigious paths doesn't make sense to me, really, since that's kind of the opposite of focusing to be good at one thing. So, for me at least, the fact that it was tough to qualify for multiple prestige classes was/is a good thing.
I think things would have been/be much better in this regard if the official rule stated that to take another prestige class one must completely finish out the first prestige class they have obtained, thus showing their devotion to the specific prestigious path they have selected. No dipping 2 levels in this, then 1 level in that, then 3 levels over there...it got ridiculous back in the day. Under this rule, for the most part, the maximum number of PrCs any single character can possibly have will be 2.
|
|
I like prestige classes and the design space they occupy in Pathfinder (special affiliate benefits/training), and I've played characters that have taken levels in them before.
But!
In my home games, I change the prerequisites for them, in a similar manner to MySelf (but different enough I think posting them contributes to this thread):
You need 5 base class levels to qualify to enter a Prestige Class.
You can only ever advance one Prestige Class at a time - in a similar manner to Ex-Monks, you don't lose abilities when you start advancing another Prestige Class, but you can't advance any further until you rejoin the organisation/re-pledge your allegiance to the dark powers/etc.
I've got rid of most of the other mechanical prerequisites (I think they stifle creativity and funnel builds, particularly when the prereqs aren't even especially related to the prestige class) except for the absolutely essential ones such as divine and arcane casting to qualify for Mystic Theurge.
I've replaced them with the equivalent of the "Special" roleplaying based prereqs that some of the prestige classes already have - typical example is worded to represent dedication to the organisation that supplies the training for the Prestige Class (to discourage mix and matching).