Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview

[Kaisoku]

Perhaps a free-hand Fighter that focuses on Unarmed combat?
The Barbarian option for Brutal Pugilist, or Fighter's "Savage" Warrior might offer types of unarmed combat, or at least a better set of abilities to focus on unarmed combat.

The Ranger also gets new combat styles, which might include an unarmed/natural weapon option (if not, I might add one myself to go with one of the possible spell-less ranger variants... skirmisher sounds like it might be).

The monk itself has Drunken Master, and possibly others (what does Monk of the Empty Hand get?) that might be more focused on combat instead of supernatural abilities/effects.

Over all, I'm impressed with this move. I never liked PrCs as the mechanic to "fix everything". Not that I hate PrCs, but I'm more of a 3.0e DM, and like the idea that PrCs were for campaign setting stuff, and ability swapping be the avenue of choice for variants.

 

[Twowolves]

My current Pathfinder Society character is my concept of a Savage Skald (Human Ftr1/Bard 1-11, Intimidate/Fear specialist), so I'm wondering what they did here as well as how they will incorporate this stuff into organized play.

Oh, and put me down as another person who has eagerly awaited a decent Elemental Wizard variant for 20 years.

 

[EroGaki]

I'm really glad that Paizo is deemphasizing prestige classes in favor of alternate class features.

But I like prestige classes...

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

prestige classes

I used to like prestige classes too. But, they have an unfortunate side effect. Because their entry requirements can be stringent, they encourage 'the build' -- the character that is planned out from level 1 to 20 at the start. I really hate this -- I think that PC choices like feats should be arrived at gradually, during the campaign, as a result of circumstances that the PC finds himself in.

I used to think that prestige classes were necessary to solve problems like the hybrid caster -- classes like the Mystic Theurge -- and to create focused classes. But Paizo's Witch and the 3.5 Beguiler convinced me that base classes are better for this purpose.

Ken

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

But I like prestige classes...

And they are fine when used as they were ment to be used, as setting flovor and something prestigious. But they have become, junk..you need a PRC just so you can be a swashbuckler!, or an agile fighter or a fire wizard or any of a dozen concepts that are just varients of a core class.


Wotc about ruined the whole thing by making PRC's into something far more powerful then core classes and something you would be a fool not to take, they became "How uber can we make this". But PRC's should not be something to good to pass up, it should be good but not better then what the core classes are.


PRC's are meant to enhance a setting or game with flavor not a fast dip power boost. Best examples to me what a PRC should be would be the Red wizard and the Hell knight.

 

[BryonD]

And they are fine when used as they were ment to be used, as setting flovor and something prestigious. But they have become, junk..you need a PRC just so you can be a swashbuckler!, or an agile fighter or a fire wizard or any of a dozen concepts that are just varients of a core class.

Meh, I don't agree that having a swashbuckler PClass in any way means you can't have a rouge "swashbuckler", a fighter "swashbuckler", and a PClass Swashbuckler all getting along just fine.

Wotc about ruined the whole thing by making PRC's into something far more powerful then core classes and something you would be a fool not to take, they became "How uber can we make this". But PRC's should not be something to good to pass up, it should be good but not better then what the core classes are.

This I agree with. But bad PClasses don't make Pclasses bad any more than bad feats make feats bad. And WotC also published some real crap feats.

PRC's are meant to enhance a setting or game with flavor not a fast dip power boost. Best examples to me what a PRC should be would be the Red wizard and the Hell knight.

I disagree with this limitation. Setting flavor is a huge benefit to PClasses. The Red Wizard and Hellknight ARE most certainly great examples of how PClasses can add to that.

But Pclasses also provide the ability to create custom character types that need not be locked into a specific group or association. Again, you can have the "royal musketeer" PClass and the Swashbuckler PClass and let them have 90% of the same abilities. The Swashbuckler only requires enough skill and training to do the cool stuff, the RM requires acceptance into the group. And again, the two can play nice alongside each other.

Limitations should be avoided. None of that trumps my agreement that poorly designed PClasses are still crap.

But, even with all that said, there is nothing to stop me from using old PClasses. And there is a virtually unlimited selection already available.

So going the class feature route with PF is win/win in my book.

 

[IronWolf]

I disagree with this limitation. Setting flavor is a huge benefit to PClasses. The Red Wizard and Hellknight ARE most certainly great examples of how PClasses can add to that.

I think setting flavor could be replicated with the Pathfinder way of doing things too though. Alternate class abilities included in the campaign setting or supplement source books could be easy ways to allow some ability adjustments to fit the specific flavor of a region.

But as you said, if folks really like the PrC system they can drop them into Pathfinder as they see fit.

 

[joebobodo]

Also, it has been confirmed on the Paizo boards that there will be 8 new Prestige Classes in the APG, so Prestige Classes are not totally lost to the ether in Pathfinder.

 

[BryonD]

I think setting flavor could be replicated with the Pathfinder way of doing things too though. Alternate class abilities included in the campaign setting or supplement source books could be easy ways to allow some ability adjustments to fit the specific flavor of a region.

I didn't dispute that.

I said

going the class feature route with PF is win/win in my book.

I was disputing a comment specifically about PClasses and whether or not they should have a limited scope.

 

[Mon]

I love this third preview... as I said over on the Paizo boards, we stopped using PrCs altogether before 3.5 even came out in our main campaign (loved them to start with, but we came to feel that the published ones had "lost their way" after only a few years and just couldn't be bothered sifting through them anymore).

As such, archetypes seem just like what our group is looking for!