Recent Posts
Now I have to say right off the bat I've never ban a big fan of PrC's you always seem to end up sacrificing more than you gain. Now just in raw power but also in the fun factor, being corralled into a specialty for very few fun abilites.
So after having a look at Pathfinder revised PrC's I have this suggestion to offer.
First off, a new rule for Pathfinder ruleset
"A Character may only take levels in ONE Prestige Class, NO EXCEPTIONS."
In my mind this fits the flavor of a PrC better, a PrC is a specialty, a focus, something which should somewhat define your character.
Now with that rule in place you can now really make PrC's exceptional instead of mediocre.
Firstly Drop all PrC's to 5 levels , maybe even 3 in some cases.
Then add requirements to take each individual level
e.g.
PrC level 1 requires 1st caster and martial weapons to enter
level 2 requires 3rd lv caster and a BAB of +4
Level 3 etc etc
This way you don't get the PrC all in one hit it grows over the life of the character. In this way you can offer very strong class abilites because you know they cant be accessed early and all in one bunch
An example of a PrC progression would be
Min Char Level 3
Min Char Level 7
Min Char Level 11
Min Char Level 15
Min Char Level 19
Or
Min Char Level 3
Min Char Level 9
Min Char Level 15
You get the flavor of the PrC early but it really doesn't open itself up until later. It still allows the 1 level PrC dip but you can only do it once and only for one PrC and the better PrC abilites would be middle-end.
e.g. you'd get to play and arcane archer from (1st level) 3rd level onward and be able to mildly enchant your arrows so that your playing as an arcane archer and look like one. at 9th level (2nd level) your powers really come into focus and you start being able to unleash hell from your bow. Then finally at 15th your a true Aracne Archer. 3 level PrC with 17 levels of base classes, however the arcane archer is the focus of your character the base class abilites are there to support it. (AA could also be a 5 level PrC)
Now if you want to take you PrC as a chunk of levels then you still can e.g. you could take 9 levels of base classes and then take 3 levels of PrC in succession becuase you meet the min Char level reqs for those 3 lvs (10th (min3) 11th (min 7) 12th (min 11))
The Initial rule also means you can really go crazy on PrC variety without fear that a char will dip into a handful of PrC and end up with something ridiculously overpowered.
Kyrinn,
Every game rule is a restriction.
In 3rd Edition D&D:
- Dwarf fighters can't fly under their own power.
- Paladins never poison people.
- Your character can't be both a gnome and an orc.
- Once all your iterative attacks are done, your opponents gets to act before your next move.
- Fireballs only do 1d6 damage per level.
- Characters can only learn new feats at the same time they gain a character level.
- You don't get any experience from stealing treasure.
- If your monk takes a single level as another class, she can never advance as a monk.
- No UZI submachine guns.
All of these are restrictions. All of them define, through those restrictions, what the game is about, and what kinds of campaigns it favors. You can houserule away any of those restrictions, and you'd get a different kind of campaign.
In this case, the OP is proposing a different take on what a "prestige class" means. Again, it makes for a different type of campaign, where "prestige class" is kind of an overall trope of the character. A dragon disciple grows gradually more draconic over her career. 9I'd be curious to see how a PrC like "archmage", or the combination PrCs (like "eldritch knight" or "mystic theurge") would work...
Just commenting on the 'one PrC only' idea as that alone made me skip the rest of the post:
This is a terrible idea, there are DMs that already have that house rule, we don't need to make that core. In general it's always easier for the DM to be a little more restrictive than for him to be more allowing (no you can't be an Elven Monk!).
For most groups PrCs don't represent following some new path or ideal, but rather that character's individual specializing. Sometimes that doesn't always fit into one PrC (a Deepwarden Foe Hunter for example).
Personally I like d20 Modern's system that encouraged multiclassing, advanced classes and prestige classes (to the point of not having 20 level classes at all). I know that won't happen in Pathfinder, but let's not let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction.
"A Character may only take levels in ONE Prestige Class, NO EXCEPTIONS."
No. I don't like restrictions like this. They're for even-numbered editions apparently, but I don't want them in my 3e/PF
Firstly Drop all PrC's to 5 levels , maybe even 3 in some cases.Then add requirements to take each individual level
Too complicated really. This moves them too far away from the class concept. Might as well do away with them and make them feats instead.
The Initial rule also means you can really go crazy on PrC variety without fear that a char will dip into a handful of PrC and end up with something ridiculously overpowered.
It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Those who want a couple of PrCs because it really makes sense are punished for those who are min/maxing.
I prefer to punish the min/maxers. RPGs have the advantage that the final instance about every rule is not a book, but the GM. You don't have to close every little gap with a fixed ruling, because you have a real person who can make judgement calls, like "no, I won't let you mix 3 different PrCs with 1-2 levels each just because you want to be unstoppable"
Every game rule is a restriction.
There's restrictions, and then there's restrictions. Just saying that because people cannot play gods in the game (i.e. do whatever they want) means that you can go on and restrict everything.
Some "restrictions" like "dwarves cannot fly under their own power" or "you cannot be a gnome and an orc at once" make sense. These "restrictions" have reasons - reaons you can explain not only in game terms, but within the game itself.
But restrictions like "you can only have one PrC" or "Elves cannot be bards" are restrictions for restriction's sake. If the explanaton for the restriction boils down to "because i say so", they don't belong in the game.
I guess it depends how you see PrC's
If you see them as nothing more than character cusomisation options with no real impact other than what abilities they grant you, well thats fine and you wont like my idea ;)
If you think PrC are a culmination even an endpoint for the character then taking multiple PrC's doesn't really make a whole lot of sense thus its not a restriction for a restriction sake, One PrC only beucase they should be special not merely a base class which can only be started later.
and speaking of arbitrary restrictions the prereqs for any PrC are arbitrary. They done fr balance not because they make sense e.g. a Mystic Theruge by definition is viable at 3rd level , 1 wiz / 1 clrc you can cast both arcane and divine. Having the minimum req 2nd level for both in the arena of making sense, dosent. In terms of balence its a neccesary restriction.
But like I said at the very start of my post I really don't like PrC's and think there must be better way to multiclass exisiting classes without the need for making new classes. This is just in my mind less of an aboration
The Prc problem you point, IMHO is not in the rules, but on the approach that each DM makes on that.
There are some dms who just make somewhat clear to the player that a prestige class is like a feat, something you get to increase your power instead of your base class. Something quite like a variant class ability or whatever, like "prestige Class".
But then this is not wrong. It's a very valid way of handling prestige classes. You just have to look at the 3.5 books and see how many prestige classe have "fluff" pre-reqs.
There are some DMs that like to enforce prestige classes as "Prestige class", creating fluff requirements, saying something like "if you enter it, you HAVE to finish it" or things like that. Actually, the DMG allows for the two kinds of playing. It says that the prestige classes might fit a special place on the campaign, or not. The Duelist might be a school of the duel (or maybe many schools of duel) or might just be a class that anyone with the reqs can enter.
As for myself I like better the second option. I create fluff requirements in my campaigns, enforce the "you MUST finish it", insert training rules (you must see your mentor/teacher/spirit guide, whatever, and waste some days training to level up in a prestige class, even and even harder) and all that comes with it. Hell, I even give the "special power" entry in Leadership to any char that finishes a prestige class. It's PRESTIGE after all (Yeah, in my campaign it's easier to just level as a base class. It makes the characters with prestige classes more prestigious, like "Ranger: Yeah, ranger level 13!" "Tempest: Oh, hell, to get my next level of Tempest I'll have to travel to that pirate insland to meet that strange wraith-like swordsman and hope he teaches me without breaking my bones again" "Ranger: Sucks to be you" "Tempest: Sucks to not have a prestige class :P").
You know, it's DM taste. It shouldn't be enforced to everyone. You should allow MANY different styles of gameplay, not only yours...
It is entirely up to the DM to include Prestige Classes in his campaign, as well as entirely up to the DM to determine how many prestige classes a PC can take.
There's no reason to nerf prestige classes for everyone.
Prestige Classes are not automatically entitled to the players; that's why they were in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, not the Player's Handbook.
-Matt
Second thread about this...
It is entirely up to the DM to include Prestige Classes in his campaign, as well as entirely up to the DM to determine how many prestige classes a PC can take.
There's no reason to nerf prestige classes for everyone.
Prestige Classes are not automatically entitled to the players; that's why they were in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, not the Player's Handbook.
-Matt
Second thread about this...
How odd I wouldn't have considered my above suggestion a nerf of PrC's. Interesting how people can see the same thing so differently ;)
I think this concept of a 'Prestige Class' that starts at first level is interesting. I think a better title would be 'Specialty Class.' It would be a class that you take to become a type of Fighter or a type of Wizard, etc starting early in your career. To a degree it is how I view Fighter, Barbarian and Ranger. They are all Warriors with a specialized type of training in a combat style. (Although admittedly the Fighter is meant to have versatility based on feat selection, it does have built in assumptions such as wearing heavy armor and strength based attacks. Can you say Dark Ages Knight?)
Prestige Classes are meant to be something you pursue after building a base level of proficiency. I would like to see Paizo pursue 'Specialty Classes' as supplemental books, not an addition to the core book. To a degree this is what they have done with Specialist Wizards.
I would say something more like "must max out a Prestige Class" or "take at least 1/2 the levels in a Prestigue Class" to fix his problems.
There is something I would like to see done with Prestige Classes though, and that is that they simply continue a previous Base Attack / Save Progression rather than adding a new one. It does take a bit of work at times, but that helps to keep players from just throughing on a bunch of Prestige Classes just to get these bumps, but at the same time does not screw over, (mostly casters) who do not get that little bump for a lot longer than normal in Base Attack.
I love how everyone assumes any kind of min/maxing or going into multiple prestige classes makes you automatically a crappy roleplayer.You know what the most fully fleshed out, most interesting, most flavorful PC I've EVER played was?
Monk2/Bard1/Conjuror5/Ur-Priest2/Sublime Chord1/Fochlucian Lyrist8
Yeh, I know, 3 prestige classes, 2 of them dipped, and 3 base classes. Clearly I'm a power hungry game monger with no backstory, no ability to roleplay, and nothing but a desire to kill everything and "win" DND.
Except I'm not and that character wasn't. Her history stretched out across five pages and her personality several more. She was the most fully fleshed out PC I've ever played and the most fun I've ever had with one. The vast majority of our time was spent roleplaying encounters between the party and those they encountered. The players went back and forth for literally hours detailing the history, and relationships between the various PCs, as well as their views on everything from sexuality to religion to good and evil.
I view prestige classes as something that let you pursue concepts and abilities that aren't available within the normal classes and feats. I see nothing wrong with wanting your character to be effective at what he/she does. Some concepts require more then one class. I've played characters with one prestige class or even none before.
For those curious about the character in question and her impact on the game - it wasn't nearly as bad as some would suggest it is. Sibylla (my character) played the role of cleric/Utility caster/blaster/skill monkey. She didn't overshadow the other PCs - or rather what little overshadowing she did have was mostly a result of her high bluff and sense motive skills.
The rest of the party was
Half-troll/half-ogre Barbarian 5/ Soul Eater 8/ Death's Chosen 1
Half-dragon Orc Warblade16
Lich (Neonate) Wilder 5/Psion Uncarnate 10
Human Rogue3/Conjuror5/Arcane Trickster 10
Conjuror3/Sorcerer1/Master Specialist1/Ultimate Magus10/Archmage 3
I see no fighters in your group.....
I generally dont care much for prestige classes ( i have my fun with variant classes, and modifying classes to fit character concepts) the original concept of prestige classes were sound, you jump through these specific hoops and you get a cookie for submitting to our archetypes. some were along the line it became the biggest minigame of them all (i gotta find all the prestige classes with the best 1st and 2nd level abilities and stackmaster them together!) now i dont have a huge problem with minigames, i too like to find ways to make my character good. but there is a level in which you no longer make characters, just builds. (why did my knight stop wearing armor and start casting eldritch blast? um, no explained reason except i need warlock for that prestige class)
i like prestige classes as defining points for characters, hate them as munchkin playgrounds (i followed all the rules, so my characters legit, and you have to let it in game!) no i dont son, because your concept is weak sauce.
I think the OP is onto a very solid idea. Limiting characters to one prestige class prevents them from dipping into multiple classes to cherry-pick certain features.
Yeah becuase no one would want to take say wizard 5, recaster 5, geometer 5, archmage 5
Or scout 5 thief-acrobat 5 dervish 10
Or wizard 5, recaster 5, uncanny trickster 3, magical trickster 3, archmage 4
Heck anytime anyone wants less than full levels they must be munchkins and have to be stopped! nevermind if they are having fun, and enjoying themselves. Nevermind if they have background, or are building around a theme.
The only problem I have with Prestige Classes is that you can take a lot of them and get rediculous Saves very easy. A character should not be able to beat a DC of 60+ regularly, and I have seen characters in 3.5 do just that at 18th level, specifically because they took 1 or 2 levels in multiple prestige classes/base classes, (for that purpose).
I think it was like 3 Levels of Monk, 3 Paladin, 4 or 5 Favored soul of Ilmater, high Dex Wisdom and Cha, 2 levels in Ranger, something that gave Evasion, I think it was Divine Oracle, and another Class that combined Monk/Paladin abilites from Champions of Faerun.
With a few exceptions, though, most Prestige Classes are fairly good about keeping their most powerful abilites till later levels. that wasn't the problem. The true troub;e of many Prestige Classes is when you combine certain abilities with others in ways that allow you to do things that are normally not possible, and should not be possible.