|
Hi everyone,
With the bump in Pathfinder RPG power at every PC level, what really is the point of prestige classes anymore.
Back in the day, a prestige class simply meant the PC was integrated into the fabric of the campaign world in such a significant way that special benefits or powers only seemed natural. I know 3.5 inflated our game with thousands of prestige types, but I have always found them to be ostensibly the same - a series of feats, powers or benefits for a finite number of levels that detoured from the typical class progression.
Please help me understand what I might be missing out on, conceptually. Even with the new Pathfinder Prestige Classes, I'm not sure using these has much merit?
Note: I am writing from a GM perspective. The type of prestige I offer my players already provides nominal benefits/powers as they become more interwoven into the story fabric, but really - are Prestige Classes really still popular? Help me see why you use them?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think I use prestige classes as a DM less than players. For a DM, like you said, there are other ways to integrate players and NPCs into the world. For a PC, a prestige class is a way of specializing, of becoming more closely what role or ideal they see their character filling.
I think the value of a prestige class is even higher. It is no longer necessary to go prestige to gain power. A character can stay in class and still gain a great deal. This wasn't always the case.
Also many PrCs were givens, there was no down side to take them, a PC lost nothing by leaving the core class. Now there is a down side.
Any good prestige class should have two things.
1) A reason to take it. Increase power and abilities, better personality for the character, a greater tie to the campaign world, etc.
2) A reason NOT to take it. Loss of higher level powers of the core class, a shift in personality of the character, weakening of existing abilities, etc.
Most PrCs don't have trouble with #1. Though some just suck and have no reason to take it, but we're talking about good ones.
Many PrCs do not address #2 and have absolutely no reason NOT to take it. Either the core class is weak at higher levels or the benefits of the PrC allow all the same benefits as the core class.
I know it seems contrary, but making the core classes better, and lessening the need for prestige classes, makes the prstige classes more valuable as character concepts, and less valuable as character necessities.
There's already a thread on this topic in the Pathfinder RPG/General Discussion are, but I'll say what I said there: Prestige classes are good if they allow you to do something unusual beyond the scope of the base classes. Prestige classes that are "like a wizard, but more wizard-y" are pretty dumb, IMO.
I kind of lump prestige classes and class variants into a bucket called "More Options", and then I dunk my head in that bucket and make motorboat noises. I like more options. :-)
|
There's already a thread on this topic in the Pathfinder RPG/General Discussion are, but I'll say what I said there: Prestige classes are good if they allow you to do something unusual beyond the scope of the base classes. Prestige classes that are "like a wizard, but more wizard-y" are pretty dumb, IMO.
I kind of lump prestige classes and class variants into a bucket called "More Options", and then I dunk my head in that bucket and make motorboat noises. I like more options. :-)
... and motorboats it seems :)
Yes, hopefully Pathfinder will see prestige classes used to represent iconic social orders, full of flavour, rather than just being ways to 'fix' the boring base classes of 3.0
I kind of lump prestige classes and class variants into a bucket called "More Options", and then I dunk my head in that bucket and make motorboat noises. I like more options. :-)... and motorboats it seems :)
Yes, hopefully Pathfinder will see prestige classes used to represent iconic social orders, full of flavour, rather than just being ways to 'fix' the boring base classes of 3.0
Well, a mechanically well-done prestige class with no "iconic social order" is a million times more useful than a mechanically lame prestige class with a wonderful, fascinating organization behind it, IMO.
By "mechanically well-done", I mean something that allows you to do something truly unique beyond the scope of what a feat might allow, and also is not a "no-brainer" choice in terms of not giving up any abilities from your base class.
For example, I think that the Shackles Pirate class from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a pretty poor PrC (it could easily be replaced with a couple of feats), even though playing a pirate from The Shackles would be very interesting.
|
I'm with hogarth. I've never much enjoyed prestige classes that allow a character to get better at their base class (Inquisitor comes to mind...cleric+better means why bother being a regular cleric).
I prefer those that: a) give the character a special place in the world, b) allow the character to combine the abilities of classes (Geomancer or Fochluchan Lyrist for example).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I'm with hogarth. I've never much enjoyed prestige classes that allow a character to get better at their base class (Inquisitor comes to mind...cleric+better means why bother being a regular cleric).
I sort of agree, but I can still see the benefit in PrCs that enhance a particular Classes abilities.
A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue (even though there are lots of things you can do with them, I'm just using them as an example 'cause they're the first one that came to mind) but adding a PrC such as Assassin or Shackles Pirate gives the Character development a tighter focus. Sure you can still do an Assassin or Shackles Pirate (or whatever else) just using the Rogue Class, but I just think the PrC gives it a bit more Flavour.|
|
This is true. Maybe I am just fondly remembering kits, so I feel that class-enhancing prestige classes should be more like in 4th Edition - you just gain different abilities. I'm not disagreeing, I just prefer when the class is more world/multiclassing functional.
For example, the much-maligned Eldritch Knight is to me one of the better prestige classes precisely because of its simplicity - full base attack plus full spellcasting progression. The only thing it is missing is armored casting.
|
A lot of Prestige Classes are silly, for several of the reasons people have already listed. There are those that just work from a mechanical perspective, a setting flavor point of view, and have proper trade-off for taking them. The best example I can think of right off hand is from the core rules, the Mystic Theruge.
The earliest you can take this class is at seventh level(being either Wizard 3/Cleric 3 or Wizard 3/Druid 3), and it lets you progress your Arcane and Divine spellcasting simultaneously, allowing you access to veritable library of spells.
The downside is that as you start, you're effectively a 4th level caster for both of your previous classes, probably behind any other casters in the group; and the end of this 10 level prestige class will stop at an ECL of 16, leaving you with a maximum of seventh tier spells and four levels to go, which is not enough to fill out both of your spellcasting tiers. Meaning you may have to choose which type of spellcaster you are preferential to. Similarly, while you have a greater total number of spells per day, your spells per day within each base class will be less than that of a character of levels equal to your ECL.
One of the bad prestige classes is also in the core rules: Arcane Archer. The concept behind it is awesome, the ability to attach spells to your arrows and deliver them at great range, especially the idea of dropping an area effect three range increments away. The problem is there are too many downsides to make it effective. I don't have my book with me, but if I remember correctly(which I admit may not be) you don't gain any extra spells or spell levels(which determine how powerfull you can imbue your arrows), your hitpoints are moderate; basically put, most things you need to excell at this class, you don't actually get from this class. Maybe it works better if you wait untill 12th level to take. I'll have to look it up once I get home. I don't wish to provide false information on this.
I sort of agree, but I can still see the benefit in PrCs that enhance a particular Classes abilities.
A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue (even though there are lots of things you can do with them, I'm just using them as an example 'cause they're the first one that came to mind) but adding a PrC such as Assassin or Shackles Pirate gives the Character development a tighter focus. Sure you can still do an Assassin or Shackles Pirate (or whatever else) just using the Rogue Class, but I just think the PrC gives it a bit more Flavour.
I guess I just don't see how a piratical rogue from The Shackles with a couple of feats to improve fighting in windy/boggy conditions is any less flavorful than a member of the Shackles Pirate (tm) prestige class. The flavour comes from the organization, not whether you're getting abilities from a PrC vs. a feat. (IMO, of course.)
The assassin is a bit different; I think that Death Attack is a little too unusual to break out into a feat, so maybe it merits a prestige class.
|
|
Cato: I also strongly dislike that Arcane Archers do not get spellcasting progression. You're stuck with 1st level spells unless you take more spellcaster levels. That doesn't fit with my idea of a caster/archer class.
I just looked it up, and I was right, they gain the ability to put spells on their arrows, and even make certain their arrows never miss, but the qualification for the class requires a BAB of 6 and the ability to cast 1st tier spells. Either you have to take it as your 13th level as a pure spellcaster to make your special arrows worthwhile(but not hit as often as you would need to), or multiclass and qualify for it earlier, but not be able to do much with your arrows.
That's one prestige class that really needs to be reworked. Perhaps a 15 level class that requires a lower BAB and access to 3rd tier arcane spells, while increasing your spellcasting every second level... I think I may have found myself a little side project.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The ideal class for a 'more focused at a cost of power' theme is the Thrallherd, IMNSHO. You give up two manifester levels, but in exchange get uber leadership, and your signature powers (Charm and Dominate) don't suffer from the lost manifester levels.
Prestige Classes that should never have seen the light of day, Abjurant Cheesewhore. I played one and swore I'd never let it in a game.
Scarred Lands Prestige classes flavourwise were what I want to see in prestige classes. They just each need to lose 1-3 caster levels.
Cato: I also strongly dislike that Arcane Archers do not get spellcasting progression. You're stuck with 1st level spells unless you take more spellcaster levels. That doesn't fit with my idea of a caster/archer class.I just looked it up, and I was right, they gain the ability to put spells on their arrows, and even make certain their arrows never miss, but the qualification for the class requires a BAB of 6 and the ability to cast 1st tier spells. Either you have to take it as your 13th level as a pure spellcaster to make your special arrows worthwhile(but not hit as often as you would need to), or multiclass and qualify for it earlier, but not be able to do much with your arrows.
That's one prestige class that really needs to be reworked. Perhaps a 15 level class that requires a lower BAB and access to 3rd tier arcane spells, while increasing your spellcasting every second level... I think I may have found myself a little side project.
Adding 1/2 or 3/4 spellcasting progression would likely be simpler and accomplish fixing everything that needs to be fixed with the class. Perhaps one or two other abilities (I'd have to look the class over again) should be altered/removed if this boost is added, for balancing reasons; otherwise, I think it would make the PrC viable again.
Help me see why you use them?
Still for the reason that you yourself posted: "a prestige class simply meant the PC was integrated into the fabric of the campaign world in such a significant way that special benefits or powers only seemed natural."
Cato: I also strongly dislike that Arcane Archers do not get spellcasting progression. You're stuck with 1st level spells unless you take more spellcaster levels. That doesn't fit with my idea of a caster/archer class.I just looked it up, and I was right, they gain the ability to put spells on their arrows, and even make certain their arrows never miss, but the qualification for the class requires a BAB of 6 and the ability to cast 1st tier spells. Either you have to take it as your 13th level as a pure spellcaster to make your special arrows worthwhile(but not hit as often as you would need to), or multiclass and qualify for it earlier, but not be able to do much with your arrows.
That's one prestige class that really needs to be reworked. Perhaps a 15 level class that requires a lower BAB and access to 3rd tier arcane spells, while increasing your spellcasting every second level... I think I may have found myself a little side project.
Just give the arcane archer +1 spellcasting every even level. All of the special arrow abilities (except for imbue arrow) are only 1x/day, so it's not like you gain a whole lot for those levels, IMO. The increasing enhancement bonus on all arrows fired at the odd levels are a big deal, so adding anything more would probably be unbalancing.
Also, don't forget that most arcane PrCs can be taken by bards. Even without any extra spellcasting for the arcane archer levels, a ranger 3/bard 7/arcane archer 10 can be fairly effective (and only needs ranger 3/bard 4 to qualify), especially with some of the bard spells in the supplements. A rogue 3/bard 9/arcane trickster 8 works pretty well, too, even if you do have to wait until rogue 3/bard 7 to qualify (two more levels than a rogue 3/wizard 5, but on the plus side it's much easier to maintain skill progression).
<Warning - character optimization ahead!>
Arcane Archer?
For me, that PrC was never about the spellcasting. As everyone has pointed out, there is no increase in spellcasting levels in that PrC. What the Arcane Archer is about is doing nifty things with one's arrows.
The most interesting ability of that PrC was at L 1 - Enhance arrow +1. Take that, and you never, ever, run out of magical arrows. Make sure that the character has access to cold iron and other "obscure alchemical metals", maybe toss in a Holy or similar bow, and you're set as a missile specialist in most cases.
A good multiclass combination with Arcane Archer would include not only some Fighter and/or Ranger levels, plus one Sorcerer level (no worries about losing a spellbook, able to use many wands, etc.) for the arcane spellcasting pre-requisite, but also at least two levels from Order of the Bow Initiate (C.Warrior). Ranged precision adds extra damage at L 1, but - more importantly - Close combat shot at L 2 allows the archer to "attack with a ranged weapon while in a threatened square and not provoke an attack of opportunity" (bolded emphasis is mine).
Needless to say, both PrC (Arcane Archer and Bow Initiate) basically use the same pre-requisites. Basically, it's my personal no-brainer combination for an archery-based missile specialist.
My only statement to the whole prestige class thing is this. If you like them use them, if not don't,it's totally a DM's call, what ever make the game more enjoyable. That was my DM perspective, now as a player my favorite character was a level 15 Barbarian/10 level Frenzied Berserker. With a 35 Strength and a +5 Greataxe.<Warning - character optimization ahead!>
Arcane Archer?
For me, that PrC was never about the spellcasting. As everyone has pointed out, there is no increase in spellcasting levels in that PrC. What the Arcane Archer is about is doing nifty things with one's arrows.
The most interesting ability of that PrC was at L 1 - Enhance arrow +1. Take that, and you never, ever, run out of magical arrows. Make sure that the character has access to cold iron and other "obscure alchemical metals", maybe toss in a Holy or similar bow, and you're set as a missile specialist in most cases.
A good multiclass combination with Arcane Archer would include not only some Fighter and/or Ranger levels, plus one Sorcerer level (no worries about losing a spellbook, able to use many wands, etc.) for the arcane spellcasting pre-requisite, but also at least two levels from Order of the Bow Initiate (C.Warrior). Ranged precision adds extra damage at L 1, but - more importantly - Close combat shot at L 2 allows the archer to "attack with a ranged weapon while in a threatened square and not provoke an attack of opportunity" (bolded emphasis is mine).
Needless to say, both PrC (Arcane Archer and Bow Initiate) basically use the same pre-requisites. Basically, it's my personal no-brainer combination for an archery-based missile specialist.
Ouch! :)
(But why quote my post in particular?)
|
|
Well, I'm just getting the sense.... many years too late mind you, that prestige classes were created for DMs who didn't quite understand how to build PCs into the fabric of the story and campaign mileau.
I get the wierd sense that its a thing we point to in order to either save time, or trust the easy balance of the PrC as if it were a D&D widget.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but given the myriad PrCs, I would just as soon develop my own for my players, rather than keeping the "paragraph-writers" in business. These to me, see a bit gamey (kind of a pun on lower choice meet and rpgs).
At most, I see value in variant classes that PCs can take from the start. Were PrC, perhaps, just an answer to folks who lacked the staying power to keep developing their character via their own imaginination? Did that act devolve into a list of new "kewl powerz" and such?
I see the value in NPC classes, and I see value in variant classes and new classes found in various supplement books i.e. Swashbuckler etc.,... and I see value in things like "Blackguard" and "Assassin" but for the most part, there seems to be way too much written about PrCs compared to actual accounts of players or GM's using them.
I am still in a quandry - - if you haven't replied to this thread, please do so. I am honestly trying to get to a good place about these, and perhaps reframe my understanding of their value.
Creative Director
|
To me, the value of a prestige class isn't something you'd do to get more powerful. It's something you'd do to immerse yourself more in the game world or your character; a way to specialize and to make your character more uniquely you, while at the same point allowing you to tailor your character more to the role you want to play in the world itself.
|
|
To me, the value of a prestige class isn't something you'd do to get more powerful. It's something you'd do to immerse yourself more in the game world or your character; a way to specialize and to make your character more uniquely you, while at the same point allowing you to tailor your character more to the role you want to play in the world itself.
Yes. Absolutely.
Why couldn't PAIZO break from traditional "stock" classes, and develop a list of skills/powers/bonuses/context sensitive-EX/SU etc., for the DM to use as-the-campaign merits it.
I envision, "The Book of Prestige" written by James Jacobs et. al., from which the GM selects the pre-requisite, selects the feats and powers at-each-level for the PCs as they either demonstrate interest or need for them based on the immersion of their PC into the world.
The whole act of writing up these PrCs is a bit anti-thema with the art of immersive context-based character development.
It might actually be fun to take the whole breadth and width of Prestige classes written since the advent of third edition and simply break them apart, compartmentalizing requirements and features by level of power in a more a-la-carte fashion.
This innovation could revolutionize the way we think-of immersive character development.
I guess it always just struck me as odd, that campaigns rarely match what a pre-generated composite PrC would offer, and that players were always wanting a bit from here and a bit from there anyways. Later they published rules on "substitution classes" for this purpose. But perhaps its time to take the whole lot and innovate a new kind of character development that is simply more in-tune with the GM's actual campaign, putting the collaborative process back into the realm of GMs and players working together....
thoughts?
Hi everyone,
With the bump in Pathfinder RPG power at every PC level, what really is the point of prestige classes anymore.
PBeta actually nerfs melee seriously, so a complicated build of right PrCs is more important than ever for a non-caster that want to survive level-appropriate challenges. Most of the casters are buffed, so they can work OK as a straight class.
I think I use prestige classes as a DM less than players. For a DM, like you said, there are other ways to integrate players and NPCs into the world. For a PC, a prestige class is a way of specializing, of becoming more closely what role or ideal they see their character filling.
Utgardloki's experiences:
I learned to appreciate the prestige class concept when I was developing my homebrew campaign of Audor and needed to figure out how I was going to communicate my concept of the "Judges". These are people who have the authority and abilities to go throughout the kingdom and make sure that the rules of the land were being followed, kind of the like marshals of the Old West. When I realized I could tie all of the relevant information into a prestige class, the problem was solved. My there are three other DMs in the universe who would use the Judge prestige class if I published it, but that is okay, because I find it useful.
PrCs are also a useful tool for specializing a character. Examples:
1. I've adapted the Dwarven Defender as a PrC offered by an order of monks that includes members of all races, although humans and dwarves make up the majority of the membership.
2. The Cavalier PrC is useful to define a fighter who is specialized for mounted combat.
3. I've defined a Dark Enchantress PrC as a way to define high-level casters dedicated to the goddess Neriya. This PrC would also be useful for other chaotic and beautiful goddesses with unsavory reputation such as Lolth.
4. The most recent PrC I created, the Favored of Luthic, is designed as a specifically orcish shaman type of divine spellcaster. I developed it as a result of about an hour of brainstorming about Luthic and how female orcs fit into orcish society.
PrCs are also a good way to evolve a character. For example.
1. I once had an elvish psychic warrior/bard who, at about 7th level, suddenly became extremely religious as a result of an encounter with the gods. Multiclassing into cleric or paladin would just not work, because of the multiclass penalty. But multiclassing into Holy Liberator allowed her to incorporate her newfound piety into her character concept.
2. I created an elvish sorceress in the Iron Kingdoms who eventually ended up multiclassing into wizard and then ranger. With the option of being an uber-powerful spellcaster foreclosed, I realized that the Adventuring Scholar PrC was just a perfect fit for her goals. Basically it would make her like a bard, which describes a character who has a lot of knowledge, some fighting skill, some magic.
One thing I do not like and do not accept is PrCs that are designed to just fix a class or a class combination. I would rather fix the class than require PCs to take PrCs to be adequately fulfil their mission.
As a DM, I ask of any PrC that is presented for use: What purpose does this PrC play in my campaign. Only PrCs that fit a purpose are allowed for PCs. As further planning, I rank the PrCs according to the following scale:
COMMON: If this PrC did not exist in the campaign, it would have to be created. Examples are the Judge in my Audor campaign, or the Assassin in the World of Greyhawk.
UNCOMMON: This class would not necessarily have to exist, but it is relatively popular, and almost everybody knows about it. Examples are the Cavaliers in my Audor campaign.
RARE: Existence of this class is not widely known, but there are a number of members of this class who can be called upon, if you know where to look. Examples are the Arcane Archers and the Shadowdancers in Audor.
VERY RARE: There may be one or two members of a PrC in the area, but the class itself plays a minor role. Usually this is when as a DM I think an NPC with a certain PrC would make a good character to include in the story. This category would include the vast majority of PrCs that I do not as DM deem unsuitable.
Among the few NPCs who have PrCs (about 0.2% of the total NPC population), about 65% are members of Common PrCs, 20% of Uncommon PrCs, 10% of Rare, and 5% of Very Rare PrCs. (Those who have read the first edition D&D books may recognize where those numbers come from.)
|
|
To me, Prestige Classes are kind of like Organizations. Each member may not know each other directly, but there's a good chance they have a few people in common between them.
The Assassin is a good example. Sure, an Assassin could be a free agent type, but it feels right to make it more of an Order of Assassins, who grant you special training upon joining.
This is why I prefer prestige quests or entry tests to allow PCs to take a Prestige Class over mere static prerequiments. Not only does it ingrain the idea that this class imparts a certain status of Prestige upon the character, but ties the Class more closely to the campaign itself.
Then there are those people who have to combine multiple prestige classes in one character. This grates on my nerves. If one prestige class doesn't fulfill your character concept, but three do, why not build a new one? Work with your DM and figure out some balanced new class which does do what you want. But the idea of Prestige Class placed on top of Prestige Class just doesn't feel right to me. For the most part, they feel like they're supposed to be a character's greater commitment to something within their life.
The Mystic Theruge, for instance, feels like a character's commit to the knowledge of magics or power.
The Arcane Archer's magic arrows are lame. Back in 3.0, when the ammunition needed to be magic to overcome DR (and I vague remember arrows and bows stacking, though don't quote me on that), it was a big deal.
In 3.5 it's the equivalent of getting a magic bow as a class feature (Whee.) It means its cheaper to do things like pile Flaming, Frost, and Holy on your bow, but class features (especially for PrCs) should be more interesting than free wealth.
To me, Prestige Classes are kind of like Organizations. Each member may not know each other directly, but there's a good chance they have a few people in common between them.
The Assassin is a good example. Sure, an Assassin could be a free agent type, but it feels right to make it more of an Order of Assassins, who grant you special training upon joining.
This is why I prefer prestige quests or entry tests to allow PCs to take a Prestige Class over mere static prerequiments. Not only does it ingrain the idea that this class imparts a certain status of Prestige upon the character, but ties the Class more closely to the campaign itself.
Then there are those people who have to combine multiple prestige classes in one character. This grates on my nerves. If one prestige class doesn't fulfill your character concept, but three do, why not build a new one? Work with your DM and figure out some balanced new class which does do what you want. But the idea of Prestige Class placed on top of Prestige Class just doesn't feel right to me. For the most part, they feel like they're supposed to be a character's greater commitment to something within their life.
The Mystic Theruge, for instance, feels like a character's commit to the knowledge of magics or power.
A longstanding rule in my campaigns has been that in order to enter a prestige class, your PC has to find an existing member of that class and convince her to train you. This ensured that every prestige class had a function in my campaign and was not just a way to gain special abilities.
As for gaining two or more PrCs, that does seem unlikely. It's hard enough to gain even one PrC, much less two or three of them. But there are some PrCs that make natural fits, such as Cavalier and Holy Liberator. I typically don't question a player's logic as long as the PC meets the training requirements.
The gripping hand is that typically, if a build with two or more prestige classes is going to be viable, their requirements are usually similar, which implies that their focus is also similar.
Although there was one character for whom I was contemplating taking the Candle Caster PrC in order to help qualify for the Loremaster PrC in order to help qualify for the Virtuoso PrC. It kind of defeats the purpose of the "Virtuoso", but how else is a sorceror going to qualify for that class?
It kind of defeats the purpose of the "Virtuoso", but how else is a sorceror going to qualify for that class?
Take one level of rogue and put 8 ranks in Perform? Take one level of bard and put 6 ranks in perform (and, as a bonus, gain the ability to use wands of cure light wounds)? All the rest of the levels can be in sorcerer (sorcerer 6/rogue 1 or sorcerer 6/bard 1). You lose two levels of sorcerer spellcasting instead of just one, but you don't need to mess with two extra prestige classes and the additional requirements.
To me, Prestige Classes are....
Well said! I agree with all of your points. It's about the organizations and how they move in the game world. I've been in favor of making most PrCs more powerful but upping the requirements to get into them. It should be something that happens within the game world. And you can't just wander into a guild house and shout "I've got all the required skill ranks!" - it should be a quest with some sense of prestige.
I still feel that where it all went wrong was putting all those PrCs in the 3.0 player books, like Sword and Fist etc. PrCs should be a DM resource, not a 'right' of the players. I've always been riled by players who shout things like "Help! I'm being oppressed!" because their DM said no to some unholy combination.
From the perspective of a player, I've only ever seen 1 PrC that I thought was so cool, "I have to take it now!" That was the Darkwater Guardian from Dragon Magazine (I forget which number). But since my character couldn't swim and hadn't been anywhere near any underground lakes in his life, I held onto the idea for a future character. Most PrCs make me go "Meh".
Peace,
tfad
I agree that "where it all went wrong" was when splatbooks became rampant breeding grounds for an increasing number of increasingly stupid/pointless PrC. What's a stupid or pointless PrC? As has been said or implied, one that is just mechanics; one that makes a class better at being that class, rather than fitting into a specialized niche (which I understood to be their original purpose). Case in point: Frenzied Berserker. A barbarian only has to take feats that he would like to take anyway (i.e., no sacrifice on the character's part to provide some element of game balance) in order to simply become more "barbariany" than he already was. The Radiant Servant of Pelor is similar.
I would have preferred, and still do prefer, feat chains and trees. You need feats and/or skill ranks X, Y, and Z to take the first feat, then have a series of other feats which require that first one and provide unique abilities. These feats could even be called "Prestige Feats" or something, designating that they are more powerful than normal feats, but require certain trade-offs in earlier feat choices. A lot of the problems with PrCs come not only from stacking multiple ones together (which I consider a no-no 90% of the time), but also in the power-creeping feats which people can also take and stack on top of all the cheese from the PrCs themselves. Feat trees lock up those slots. This also helps curb the unforseen ramifications of mixing feats A, B, and C; none of which were meant to be used in conjunction and are completely unbalancing when such is the case. A feat chain would require a known allotment of requirement feats and abilities, and then be built with full knowledge of how each individual feat will work with others in the tree. Customization is also preserved, as one can take a feat tree, but only take the parts that interest/work for them; as opposed to the locked progression of abilities from a PrC. It's also my experience that five new feats are quicker to look over and understand than one new PrC.
Are there problems with this idea? Of course. One is the simple number of feat slots: in 3.5, there may not be enough; while in PFRPG, there may be too many. But I would have preferred this over the wild proliferation of PrCs that 3.5 saw; and feat chains and trees are what I typically default to when a player wants some different abilities, which one might initially think to lump into a PrC.
Another 2cp for the collection.
It kind of defeats the purpose of the "Virtuoso", but how else is a sorceror going to qualify for that class?Take one level of rogue and put 8 ranks in Perform? Take one level of bard and put 6 ranks in perform (and, as a bonus, gain the ability to use wands of cure light wounds)? All the rest of the levels can be in sorcerer (sorcerer 6/rogue 1 or sorcerer 6/bard 1). You lose two levels of sorcerer spellcasting instead of just one, but you don't need to mess with two extra prestige classes and the additional requirements.
Problem is that this PC was an elf, and therefore taking a single level of Bard was not a viable option. Plus, the DM watched multiclassing like a hawk and always had to be talked into allowing a multiclass combination. I don't think he would have allowed this character to multiclass into Bard.
But one of these days I will have to build a sorcerer/candle caster/loremaster/virtuoso. Just because I can!
Well said! I agree with all of your points. It's about the organizations and how they move in the game world. I've been in favor of making most PrCs more powerful but upping the requirements to get into them. It should be something that happens within the game world. And you can't just wander into a guild house and shout "I've got all the required skill ranks!" - it should be a quest with some sense of prestige.
I still feel that where it all went wrong was putting all those PrCs in the 3.0 player books, like Sword and Fist etc. PrCs should be a DM resource, not a 'right' of the players. I've always been riled by players who shout things like "Help! I'm being oppressed!" because their DM said no to some unholy combination.
Whenever I wrote up a Prestige Class, I always put up in the requirements some role-playing requirement. A Favored of Luthic has to gain Luthic's favor and agree to advance her goals. An Audorian Judge has to complete a quest given to him by an existing Audorian Judge before getting to the PrC. A Dark Enchantress has to be inducted into the class by an existing Dark Enchantress. And Dark Enchantresses are notorious for being capricious and difficult to persuade. (Generous bribes of chocolate may help.)
At least by putting the PrCs in books that the players can pour over, that means the players can keep an eye out for cool ideas you might not come across. I've also found it is a lot easier to interest a player in a PrC that he has found. As a DM, how do you get a player interested in a PrC that you've made up?