Are prestige classes still viable?

[AllisterH]

Having just finished reading the Pathfinder RPG core book, what I've been wondering about is if there is still sufficient incentive to take levels in a prestige class.

Imho, the base classes have received so many power-ups, I'd have a hard time justifying taking a level in a different (prestige) class.

Or is it just the prestige classes in the core book that aren't particularly attractive?
Or am I just overlooking something that makes them more attractive?

Depends on the prestige class.

Frankly, if you're trying to eke out the most powerful build, you're STILL going to be taking prestige classes out the wazoo since the most powerful/broken PrC are STILL broken/powerful and they weren't taking the flavour PrC anyway.

For example, if your players are power-gamers, nobody was taking any spellcasting PrC that had more than 1 non-increasing spell level feature per 5 levels of the PrC. However, if they were the type to use Incantrix and IotSV in their wizard builds, they're STILL going to be (ab)using them.

What Pathfinder has done is that many of the more, I guess, tamed PrC were either invalidated by the single class options or actually have become weaker.

What a lot of people forget is that most PrC pretty much blew chunks in terms of power and only I'd say about 10% of all the PrC were actually truly broken (Planar Shepherd is STILL massively broken).

One of the side effects of the PF change to shapeshifting for druids is that it actually makes druid PrC actually more attractive than before. Previously, there aren't that many druid PrC that actually increased both spellcasting and shapeshifting at the same time and since both features were so powerful, it meant that the BEST build for druid was DRUID 20.

With the nerfs to shapeshifting, people might actually look at the druid PrC now.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No one disputes the fact that a DM can mitigate bad game design with Rule 0. That doesn't mean that bad game design should be wholeheartedly embraced.

And retraining a feat? In my opinion, that's a perfect example of using a bad rule to fix another bad rule. Why should a character have to forget how to do something so he can join an organization?

Ken

My wizard wants to cast grease today, but why does he have to lose th ability to cast magic missile he had yesterday to do it? My level 1 Orc Barbarian thinks he should have Weapon Focus AND Power Attack, because he's both trained with his greatclub all his life and knows how to swing harder and less accurately.

You can only have so many feats/skills/spells/etc... If you want one when you're "full," for game balance reasons, something else has to go. If you don't think your character should "forget" that ability, you can wait until you level up and get a new feat/skill point/spell slot. You can't just get it for free because you want it. That is what re-training is for. maybe you hate the idea of a character doing it, but I find it's better to let a player have the character he wants to play, rather than say "tough luck, you're stuck with that feat you chose 5 months ago." I also don't think a player should be able to retro-fit his Pc all over again every few weeks. But a once in a while tweak? In a system that says you can only know so many things at once, how does it not make sense ot have a means to learn new things outside of expanding the limit?

 

[Jhaelen]

And retraining a feat? In my opinion, that's a perfect example of using a bad rule to fix another bad rule. Why should a character have to forget how to do something so he can join an organization?

Actually, I think, that makes perfect sense for 'organizations' that work like mystery cults. Typically, to join them you have to undertake an initiation ritual that symbolizes a new beginning or even being reborn.

I don't think it's unusual that initiates would be advised to 'forget everything you know or think you know to be prepared for the secret truth that will lead you to illumination/power/whatever'

This is even sometimes true in non-mystical contexts, e.g. when trying to learn a new combat style. Retraining can be used to model a conscious decision not to use something you learned in your old class.

I'd also like to note that this is similar to dual-classing in 1e/2e: you temporarily lost access to some of your abilities until you had gained more experience in your new class.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

ok

I'll concede it is a bit like the dual classing in 1E, but we thought that was pretty wierd even back then!

And it's well established that the D&D magic systems involves preparing spells that you forget when you cast. That's an esoteric characteristic of the way magic works in D&D. It seems a stretch to claim that feats should work the same way -- they often don't even represent magical ability.

I think that in the narrow case of a Mystery Cult allowing the retraining of a feat as part of a mind-altering, drug-addled, initiation might make sense. But, the vast majority of prestige classes aren't mystery cults that demand one forgo one's previous life and knowledge.

I don't know, I just find it too jarring if sam the sorcerer has a Fey Heritage one week, but the next week he trades it away because he's decided that he'd be more powerful with bloodline of fire or something. In my experience, this always amounts to either powergaming at the expense of character concept, usually because someone is more interested in having the perfect build than in making connections in the game world.

Ken

 

[JacktheRabbit]

To go back to the basic premise of the thread yes the PrC is still viable. They can serve to meet specialized threats, concepts, or beliefs. They do not need to be a powerup in general for a character. What they should do is allow for specialization and focus. A duelist is not a better warrior than a fighter. But he is better one on one with a blade fighting someone, that is his thing. But if forced to grab a bow or fight on a battlefield he is not as effective as a fighter.



What I do not like in the Pathfinder book is how poorly they chose PrCs for inclusion. I know to a degree they stuck to those in the DMG, but there was no reason to do this and the ones they added beyond that were bad choices.

Break them down. You have a ton of choices for the Arcane spellcaster. You have some choices for the Fighter. You have a couple choices pretty exclusive to the Rogue. You even have two choices that are great for the bard.

You do not have any choices for the Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, or Monk. This is horrible job of selecting what would be in the book.

 

[James Jacobs]

Break them down. You have a ton of choices for the Arcane spellcaster. You have some choices for the Fighter. You have a couple choices pretty exclusive to the Rogue. You even have two choices that are great for the bard.

You do not have any choices for the Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, or Monk. This is horrible job of selecting what would be in the book.

Honestly... I agree 100%. There wasn't enough room, alas, to fit a better mix of classes in there, and we were kind of stuck with what was in the SRD as far as choices go, further compounded by the fact that we had other plans for the blackguard, of course.

The Advanced Player's Guide, due out next Gen Con, will absolutely be addressing this fact though.

(And while I agree there's not a LOT of choices for clerics or druids... the mystic theurge and, more to the point, the loremaster DO work for them. And a barbarian/sorcerer eldritch knight might be pretty nifty... Monks ARE kinda hosed though.)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Honestly... I agree 100%. There wasn't enough room, alas, to fit a better mix of classes in there, and we were kind of stuck with what was in the SRD as far as choices go, further compounded by the fact that we had other plans for the blackguard, of course.

The Advanced Player's Guide, due out next Gen Con, will absolutely be addressing this fact though.

(And while I agree there's not a LOT of choices for clerics or druids... the mystic theurge and, more to the point, the loremaster DO work for them. And a barbarian/sorcerer eldritch knight might be pretty nifty... Monks ARE kinda hosed though.)

Loremaster kind of works but knocks your HD to a D6 and your BAB to a wizard, poor choices for clerics and druids who end up stepping up in combat quite often.

Barbarian/Sorcerer elderich knight could work but I was thinking more along the lines of PrCs that dont add spellcasting. A barbarian PrC should leave you a barbarian thematically not make you into a spellcaster.

Also Blackguard is not exactly a PrC choice for a Paladin since it requires a complete change in alignment and focus.

Glad to hear that you are making changes in the next book. My request is that you do not just rehash a bunch of existing Monk PrC choices. I have never found any of them appealing and I am hoping for some new ideas.

 

[DragonBelow]

We very much tried to make prestige classes not into power-ups for base classes but "flavor choices" for base classes. I'm still not sure we accomplished this, and I'd love to hear more feedback... but the basic goal was that we were hoping that folks would pick up a prestige class for either roleplaying reasons (becasue they want to be an assassin or a loremaster) or because they wanted to do a complex multiclass (like arcane archer or eldritch knight). HOPEFULLY this'll also result in folks not doing the prestige class dip as much, because if you're taking a prestige class for roleplaying reasons or to support a multiclass, you'll WANT to stick it out to the prestige class's end.

Anyway... I'm looking forward to seeing how this shakes out!

This is why I am so happy about Paizo and Pathfinder, they just get it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Did people seriously never read PrC requirements and just go "Wait, oh dammit, I can't go Archmage, I don't have enough points in Spellcraft! If only I had read anything at all about the PrC before trying to go into it!"

Because I don't think I've ever once heard of that happening, ever.

 

[Jhaelen]

Did people seriously never read PrC requirements and just go "Wait, oh dammit, I can't go Archmage, I don't have enough points in Spellcraft! If only I had read anything at all about the PrC before trying to go into it!"

Well, maybe my gaming group is unusual, but most of my players don't have any books besides the PHB. So, what happens is that they're asking me to recommend (prestige) classes that might be interesting for their characters.

After determining what it is they're looking for, I do some research and get back to them with some options. It happens quite often that something that would be an ideal fit doesn't work because they don't have the required prereqs (yet).

Not everyone is interested in poring over every book ever published and reading the hundreds of prestige classes that are available in 3E.

Only one of my players builds his character from level 1 to 20 before starting to play. And, as it happens, those characters tend to be the most problematic in play. Because, as often as not, his character concepts aren't really playable until the high levels.