I meant:
In 3.5, it is generally an improvement of most builds to prestige class.
In Pathfinder, that is not a general rule (often, the opposite is the case).
Fake edit: actually I just read my original phrasing and you’re forgiven for the misunderstanding. “Isn’t good by default” can totally read like “bad by default.” Chalk it up to my poor English.
Re-reading my post rephrasing my intended meaning my point should stand out clearer:
The point was that one of Pathfinder’s intended design goals was to incentivize single-classing not to exclude dipping or prestige classing, but to make both options worth considering (though arguably, PF falls slightly too much in the SC camp on the whole). Most of Pathfinders changes fall into either this category or the system rework category; e.g. the way Combat Maneuvers work.
These changes generally reduce the ease with which you can access broken things while simultaneously elevating many options that were suboptimal in 3.5, but they don’t change the core features of the system or your approach to it. They just tweak it.
This is evident from the fact that most of 3.5’s core issues (or, the cost the systems pay for their abundance of complexity, if you will) persist through to Pathfinder. Fans of the system often deny these issues but I really like Pathfinder despite them. Any design choice has an associated cost, and with a system as insanely varied and asset heavy as 3.5 and Pathfinder are bound to have problems that manifest in moment to moment gameplay.
Last edited:
face.
