To combine two words that I’m fed up with hearing, I present you with the Prestige Fallacy, which goes something like this: Prestige classes are the secret to a satisfying D&D experience. Want to make your character unique? Don’t bother thinking creatively, just take a PrC! Need a set of specific abilities for some NPC foes? Well they’ll have to be at least sixth level, but there’s a PrC for that! Playing in a game above fifth level? Better take a PrC, or everyone will laugh and call you NEWB! Playing a non-magical character? Well you NEED at least two base classes plus at least five PrCs, just to pull your own weight!
The first word of the term ‘prestige class’ doesn’t even apply to most games; players take PrC levels simply as a matter of course. No prestigious organizations, just pointless prereqs that force players to plan out their stat minutiae from level 1. God forbid that all those cool special abilities should be available to single classed characters as alternate class features, feats and spells! Or even as base classes!
Some PrCs are simply means to circumvent artificial restrictions in core. Example: blackguard and holy liberator, which exist solely to bypass the paladin’s needlessly restrictive alignment requirement. That’s downright moronic. God forbid these character concepts should be available from level 1!
And then there’s the combo-concept PrCs. How many gish PrCs came out before someone in R&D finally said “Hey, why don’t we just make this a base class? We’ll call it the duskblade!”? Five? Six? Seventeen? All of those combo-concept PrCs would be better off as base classes; mystic theurge & co., arcane trickster, I’m sure there are others. Again, god forbid players and DMs have these options at level 1, ‘cause that would be insanity!
There are PrCs that exist to compensate for the suckitude of the game mechanics; Tempest and that TWF PrC from Bo9S comes immediately to mind. Why is everyone’s first impulse when encountering a problem with the basic game rules to fix it with a PrC, rather than fixing the problem itself? Great, so if I want to be a decent dual wielding warrior, I have to wait until sixth level? No thanks, I’ll play a different character concept until sixth level, then make a suicidal decision, and then play the concept that I really want to play. Gee, that’s brilliant game design right there!
There are PrCs that exist solely as magnifications of base classes; I’m looking at you, Radiant Servant of Pelor and Frenzied Berserker! There is zero reason that the benefits which these classes grant should not be feats, class abilities or else banned for being stupidly overpowered.
Finally there’s the mess of PrCs that might have a right to exist in certain games, but would also be better off as feats, class abilities and spells in most games.
Discuss.
G**#$@n, it's good to see your posts again, Tequila.
I never really got into the whole prestige class thing, and while I don't think they should be eliminated completely, I do think that they should be seriously stripped down. Some PrCs- particularly those with 5 or fewer levels- would be better off as a group of feats. Others should be folded into already existing classes as alternative class abilities. Still others should be reworked so that they either have less prerequisites or more abilities that can be found only in that class without making non PrCs irrelevant.
|
I agree with you. I truly think that prestige classes should be virtually (but not completely) eliminated. I think that they're a great concept to represent involvement in an organization or specialized training; otherwise they take away, not add to, creativity within the game. Having a handful of core prestige classes (Pathfinders, etc.) and design rules in place for DMs to make their own as needed would be sufficient, I think.
Unfortunately, prestige classes are a concept so embedded in 3.5 (and, I daresay, loved by most players) that I don't foresee them going anywhere. This is likely to be one of the areas where house rules are required for those DMs that don't like them or that want to restrict their use (as I've always done).
|
Lately, as my PCs have arrived at 5th level in the current campaign, I've been thinking a lot about the value, or lack thereof, in prestige classes. (See the other thread I started of the similar name on that topic).
I've been disillusioned lately in the amount of time and research energy I spent in my last campaign trying to find the right prestige class for the PCs. In the end, I make two custom prestige classes for them on my own. One was called a Forgeweaver, and the other was called a Bard of Renown. In both cases, I used a similar mindset. I had literally built these PrCs from scratch, created new powers never before imagined, and also leveraged existing class powers etc., from written matierials based off the proscribed "level" of power therein.
It worked out great, but I really wish I could pick these powers level-by-level as it makes sense to do so.
I envision a new d&d in which prestige classes are more like they were meant to be in the old days - merely an extention of the integrated PC into the fabric of the campaign world. Somewhere along the way, I believe "Magic the Gathering's" a-la-carte approach to defined powers and abilities had led to the creation of third edition.
Don't get me wrong. I like v.3.5 but would like to see PrC placed back in the hands of the GM. In old school gaming, we did just fine without them; they were just an extension of the PC having made more allianced, become more famous, or somehow become more intrinsically integrated with the over-arching story - and there were some modest commensurate benefits of course.
I would like to see an OGL book compendium that collects all powers by level of power for GMs to stay 3.x./PRPG, completely, but also have quicker versatility within the system.
I just don't really get the "lets fit the swquare peg (the character) into the round hole (PrC)" aspect to this process. Maybe I've misunderstood something...
I thought prestige classes were the worst idea in 3rd edition. As a genreal rule, my players were not intrested in them. I felt like they didn't function well in Greyhawk either (as a general rule). Though I did accept them to a degree, I weeded out most of them which had no basis in Greyhawk.
Then after thinking things over some more I decided to do away with them, or more accuretly, modify how they worked. What I opted for was allowing PC to try was find in Prestige Class they liked and utilizing the abilties there in. The character would still be required to meet the prerequisites of the Prestige Class but I would attach the Prestige Class to an organization or religion of Greyhawk.
I had developed a some rules allowing the characters to acquire the abilities of the Prestige Class one by one but rather than taking another class and cutting into the class levels, they would take an XP cut. The more abilities they took (one with each forthcoming level) they would take a bigger XP cut in the long run. They also had the option of bypassing abilities they didn't like so long as they weren't dependent upon another ability later on. Example, if a prestige class ability gave a +1 bonus in whatever, and later you could take a +2 bonus in the same ability, you HAD to take the +1 ability first.
Overall, as is, I thought Prestige Classes were a terrible design and not so D&Dish.
General agreement here. Most PrCs have no integration to a setting and are just methods of introducing power creep, bloat to the game in general, and cutting away from the core classes. I don't like introducing new base classes (for about the same reason I don't like introducing new races; I wonder where they are supposed to fit and come from); but turning most PrCs into a series of feats sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not sure at what point PrCs became "the main feature" of 3.5 (I'm looking at you, Complete series!) and a Gods-given right of the players; but I would have been much happier with a small list of core PrCs, similar to the ones in the DMG. Not exactly the same; the arcane archer irritates me because it doesn't get any spellcasting progression; and the blackguard irritates me because it's exactly like a paladin, but "good" and "evil" were switched. If they're going to go to the trouble of making an unholy knight, I'd prefer something a little more unique (and I don't think the solution is opening up paladins to all alignments, either).
I actually have an organization of NPC spellcasters in my homebrew that (gasp!) doesn't have a PrC associated with them! There's a few feats that chain off each other that give these spellcasters some special abilities and unique spells; otherwise, they're just normal sorcerers.
Hey, Freehold DM and Saern! It has been a while since I've posted anything longer than a couple of lines. I think I'm becoming more and more like my avatar, what with posting rants like this about 3e/PF, which I'm not even much interested in anymore. Next I'll be ranting about the kids on my lawn, walking uphill to school both ways and the price of denture cement.
I would like to see an OGL book compendium that collects all powers by level of power for GMs to stay 3.x./PRPG, completely, but also have quicker versatility within the system.
That would be a great resource for house ruling DMs!
I had developed some rules allowing the characters to acquire the abilities of the Prestige Class one by one but rather than taking another class and cutting into the class levels, they would take an XP cut. The more abilities they took (one with each forthcoming level) they would take a bigger XP cut in the long run.
So wait, I can take a special ability from a PrC but I get less XP for ever after? Did any of your players use this option?
I actually have an organization of NPC spellcasters in my homebrew that (gasp!) doesn't have a PrC associated with them! There's a few feats that chain off each other that give these spellcasters some special abilities and unique spells; otherwise, they're just normal sorcerers.
And that's really all you need for a special organization...the organization itself! Feats are a nice touch though.
TS
I don't think I have ever used a prestige class. I thought about it once, but discovered I could do the same thing better by multiclassing two base classes instead. I love using stuff from the splatbooks. New feats, new spells, new ways to use skills. All fun stuff. And we're pretty good about self-editing out stuff that ends up too crazy good. But I always skip the prestige class. I'm trying to remember if anyone, yes, once someone used a prestige class. Sometimes I read through them just to get ideas that I can use in a way that isn't annoying. A lot of those abilities would make great feats. But they just aren't worth it the way they are, and they don't really tie into organizations at all. They're just lame.
So wait, I can take a special ability from a PrC but I get less XP for ever after? Did any of your players use this option?TS
The point was that if a character has more abilities than the other players it needs to be balanced. An XP loss was the balance. Pretty easy to understand, just not your cup to tea perhaps.
|
Hey, Tequila. I agree with you for the most part, that's why in the homebrew I'm building, Prestige Classes are parts of an organization; and instead of prerequirements, the character interested in the class undergoes a Prestige Quest. Having the prerequirements may not always be necessary, but would definitely help in the Quest.
An example would be the following. First, I have to mention that I've turned the Paladin into a Prestige Class. That said, being a Cleric with Mounted Combat certainly aids the character in his quest to become a Paladin, but the player could be running a Wizard who has strong religious beliefs. As long as he can pass the test, then he can progress in the class.
This way, the player doesn't have to skew the character concept to fit the Prestige Class, and by completing the mini-quest, they join an organization, fulfilling the idea that Prestige Classes are more Prestigious than the base classes. It also instills the idea that the organization is giving the character special training to fit with its ideals and goals.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
IMHO there is just two types of Prestige Classes: Ones that fix otherwise unviable concepts (sorcerer / fighter or wizard / cleric to name just two), and the "+6 Sword" kind.
The former is perfectly ok IMHO, since they do not involve getting something for nothing. The later kind is what has made the term prestige class sound bitter to me. It involves being just plain better for fulfilling artificial, sometimes relatively trivial prerequisites. This is the kind that could be very well cut from the game.
In general, prestige classes that make you a "super specialist" in some area should be frowned upon, if not totally eliminated. For example, the full progression prestige classes for wizards (Incantatrix, ...) seem to trade off a few feats few consider essential (metamagic is more conveniently handled with items) for vast increases in their primary effectiveness. That is to me the basic, distilled bad prestige class.
But the real question is, and is nudged upon by the OP.
If Prestige Classes are so "Bad" (as the following conversation and the use of the word fallacy among other things suggest"
Why do so many players love them so much (as the op admits)
I am left with two conclusions
Either the Bad PrC Fallacy is really a Dm/Grognard fallacy. There is really no such thing as a bad prc, just a lot of Dm's and grognards who compleign alot about them. God knows that one time i had a real hate on for Prc's and after a while , I just stopped worry about them all together. You want to be a multiclassed Shifter/Rouge/Fighter/Warshaper? Go right ahead. You want to be a Monk/Barbarian Emerald Disciple. Go for it.
And you know, my Players A> Went for it B> Had fun C> become more invested in my game than they had before. Sure my world was probably less realistic, didn't have a whole lot of organizations that explained these powers, and other things like that . But fun trumps, and in most cases 4-5 peoples fun trump the little bit of enjoyment a dm gets from having a realistic world.
If the above is not true, then I'm left with the conclusion that people who like prc's for the most part are bad players. Now here's the issue. to do this you gotta tell a lot of people that 'their playing it wrong' fallacy isn't an observation, it isn't a personal preference, its a something that looks correct that is not. So all those people who are having fun as paladin2/Fighter4/Rouge2/Holy Avenger5/Blackguard7 are doing it wrong. You better get to work, correcting all these people OP because god knows the fate of DnD depends upon it.
so yeah. I dont think that everyone's playing wrong, that means that Prc Fallacy is an issue for dm's and grognards and no one else really. Don't like PRC try to form a group that doesn't allow them, and Good Luck.
Logos
I can't help but notice that you are in the minority here, Logos. Sure, fun's fun, but the DM is part of the game as well and should be able to enjoy the game as much if not more than the players, and yes, game/world balance is an important part of what makes the game fun for DMs. Bad players are going to be bad players(and grognards will be grognards) with or without prestige classes, but prestige classes are what this thread is about, so let's focus on that. Banning them outright or simply letting players run willy-nilly with them are two extremes that aren't going to work apparently if this conversation is going to remain civil- they step on everyone's toes. Surely, some kind of compromise can be made.
Why do so many players love them so much (as the op admits)
I suspect that players who love PrCs do so mostly because by adding a PrC, it adds a new dimension to their character that they don't really have to think about. It's got a cool name and neat abilities that nobody else can have; it's new and shiny!
Myself, I don't have a problem with most of the neat abilities that PrCs grant; in fact I love giving players more options. I just don't like making my players go through hoops [read: PrCs] to get them.
On a side note, I just talked to a friend who will be running a 3.5 evil game and she okayed my sorcerer having access to the cleric spell list. So I can play a mystic theurge without going through the BS of splitting my caster levels and all that.
TS
|
|
adds a new dimension to their character that they don't really have to think about
Yeah.... sad to say, our community and now the world (of warcraft) is saturated with grab-and-go character packages. This statement may offend a few million people, but the great art of creating your OWN character concept was subplanted with convenient, albeit shallow, PrCs.
I have read James Jacobs' statement on PrCs in my other thread called: "What's the value of Prestige Classes anymore?" and I must add that in the absense of experience, talent, skill, or raw imagination, the PrC do in spire - in the same way we're all inspired by the art in our books. For this reason, I am forced to tone down my rhetoric on this and say - hey, maybe they're not really just for munchkins anymore, but to illustrate what a character can be.
In this way, I somehow wish we could treat PrCs as crutches.... something players and DMs use until the players and DMs are ready to collaborate on a meaningful PrC that is custom-built for the particular fabric of the campaign story that is being run.
Just my 2cp. This is just one view, I welcome different views on this, because I am open to learning what their value is still today. I want to be a believer - I am just not there yet.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
And you know, my Players A> Went for it B> Had fun C> become more invested in my game than they had before. Sure my world was probably less realistic, didn't have a whole lot of organizations that explained these powers, and other things like that . But fun trumps, and in most cases 4-5 peoples fun trump the little bit of enjoyment a dm gets from having a realistic world.
[...]
so yeah. I dont think that everyone's playing wrong, that means that Prc Fallacy is an issue for dm's and grognards and no one else really. Don't like PRC try to form a group that doesn't allow them, and Good Luck.
You forget one thing: I GM to have fun. End of story, what's bad for my fun is bad for my game, and players who can't play by these rules, well... Bad players for my game.
On a more constructive note: A lot of the problems i have with Prestige Classes stems from the wild array of them, and their unlimited combinations. Simply making them subject to escalating multiclass penalties, or prohibiting your from branching out of one before its through might help a lot.
I like the thought of prestige classes, but I tend to want them more ingrained in the world and story than most do. In a homebrew game a friend of mine is running I am currently the only oriental themed character in the group and have just taken on a position as one of the clan leader's elite guard, and have taken a level in the Kensai prestige class. What my friend did to ingrain the class into the world more he has added 2 features to the class: 1) the sword gains intelligence as you level the prestige class since the process of becoming a Kensai you essentially have an ancestral spirit live in your blade to guide you, and 2) The typical oath is replaced with very specific duties, that also adds in that if your dishonered (and lose your kensai abilities as per the standard version) no atonement will fix it short of ritual suicide.... Pretty steep but fits the concept of the world greatly. When a prestige class is given this sort of treatment then I am all for them existing, but when they simply add powers or have no real hook into the world is when I oppose them.
It's an interesting discussion. I've only only come back to DnD in the last few years and PrC's baffled me at first. With ADnD, we fluffed it up more and made it up as we went along. I would agree that PrC's do a good job of inspiring ideas as one poster put it. What I have a problem with is the amount of space used in the publications covering PrC's. I would much have preferred more time being spent on the main theme's of the splats (which seemed to just scratch the surface before diving straight into PrC's). Hereos of Horror was a pretty cool book but it's as if I'm just starting to get a feel for it when I get to the "end".
Great ideas' about making them standalone feats. Also, incorporating those ideas into the actual world. At the end of the day, you can't please everyone all the time. In my group, pretty much anything goes with respect to PrC's and it seems a little disjointed sometimes. My feeling is that PrC's should be there to enhance the game (once the flavour is agreed upon by the DM and players); not just to amuse the players with ridiculous combinations of metagamed mutants. The magic word can sometimes be "no", although a compromise should be attempted.
Has anyone tried a 'prestige feat' type approach?
giving players extra abilities or feats similar to the prestige class abilities but within their own class?
how did it work?
I can't help but notice that you are in the minority here, Logos.
He's in the minority on this particular thread, but there have been about three other threads on the exact same topic recently with various posters weighing in on the pro and con sides.
My two cents (that I've contributed on other threads, so I'm repeating myself a bit): the kind of prestige classes I like are those that let me do something unusual that no base class can do. So I like the Master of Many Forms PrC (which gives all sorts of shapeshifting abilities) and I don't like the Radiant Servant of Pelor (which is like a cleric, but more cleric-y). Generally speaking, I don't really like the organizations that come with PrCs at all because I'd rather roleplay as a group than have my PC run off and chat with the Brotherhood of the Mystic Macguffins while the rest of the players sit around and twiddle their thumbs.
Now if I could get the same kind of interesting and unusual abilities through feats or alternate class features instead of a PrC, it's all the same to me.
Has anyone tried a 'prestige feat' type approach?
giving players extra abilities or feats similar to the prestige class abilities but within their own class?
how did it work?
I tried that a LONG time ago, so long that I honestly don't remember how it worked out. I'd be willing to try it again sometime soon, though.
I currently DM a group of 8, and only 2 or 3 players have PrCs.
The druid doesn't need a PrC, and besides, she's a newbie.
The ranger/scout archer WANTS a PrC, but most of the ones he's looked at would be WEAKER than the ranger/scout combo with Swift Hunter feat.
The bard took a PrC just because we use Action Points, and she has a ton of them, so I made a PrC that allows her to spend APs to help her allies and hinder her foes.
The beguiler, evoker, and goliath monk don't really need them, either.
The duskblade/swashbuckler keeps threatening to take the Fortune's Friend PrC from Complete Scoundrel, but I don't think he has yet.
The halfling is a swashbuckler/rogue/invisible blade/master thrower/whisperknife. But it's all about being a good knife fighter, so it all fits.
But my NPCs use tons of PrCs. I use a lot from the Complete series, but I also make a ton for my organizations (the Saffron Knights (gnolls mounted on dire lions)) and key NPCs (the Lead Jester, a derro artificer/spellthief/crafty purloiner).
PrCs are a fun and relatively easy way to throw some new weird and neat and interesting situations and powers at the PCs without having the monsters be weird creatures they've never seen before or upseting grognard expectations of what a mindflayer or kraken can do.
|
The sad part is that every time I ask my DM for an alternate ability to flesh out a character concept I have I get told about several prestige classes I can take.....in a few levels. Meanwhile if you want a fast martial arts sword and boarder, play a fighter until you can take a PRC.
Also everytime I ask a player what type of special abilities they would like to have to complete their character concepts they look at me like I am speaking some foreign language and have cheese hanging from my nostrils. Then they answer with "I plan to take 3 levels of X class, multiclass to X for 4 more levels and then PRC into X for 5 levels before tapping into PRC X for the remainder". A ton more work than just telling me what is attractive in that package and me figuring out how to give that to you.
D&D is becoming very lazy and dumbed down while favoring people with the most books and an OCD to analyze every aspect of the over 600 classes and prestige classes out there (yes I know that statement seems to contradict itself). And yes, last time I heard (a couple years ago) there was around 650 classes and prestige classes in D&D, not counting all the 3rd party stuff.
That's crazy.
D&D is becoming very lazy and dumbed down while favoring people with the most books and an OCD to analyze every aspect of the over 600 classes and prestige classes out there (yes I know that statement seems to contradict itself).
If I were a player in someone's campaign, I would enjoy doing that. I like reading about classes though. The same as with monsters and feats. Then again, I really like some of the base classes outside the core books (scout, soulknife, psychic warrior) so I can't even say for sure if I'd take a prestige class.
All the players in my current 3.5e campaign have stuck with the core classes so far. One guy wants to take class levels to gain a lycanthrope template but he hasn't yet. (I've already broke the template down into class levels, just a matter of time.) Of course last session he wanted to play a pure scout and the session before that he wanted to play a pure paladin. (He's presently a pure ranger, 6th level.)
Anyway, for my games, I'm pretty loose with PRCs as long as the characters can hit the mechanical requirements. At the end of the day, they're just classes and the main requirement I care about is alignment-restrictions. (No monk/barbarian/paladin/bards, or equivalent prestige variations, in my games. That would drive me insane.) The mechanical requirements do give them the illusion of prestige to the players though.
|
|
...the kind of prestige classes I like are those that let me do something unusual that no base class can do.
That's a great way of putting it- I share the same position. If you can replicate the same thing with feats, that's fine- but I think many PrC "powers" would be overpowered as feats, which would cause other problems/complaints. An extension of the "feat path" concept might alleviate that, but that's not something that has seemed to popular on the player side.
|
|
This also boils down to a decent percentage of PrCs catering to munchkins. Like Fake Healer said, dipping into X levels of this then X levels of that so that I can qualify for this new class and take X levels of that, can get pretty annoying extremely fast.
When one member of the party goes into, or plans to go into a powerful PrC (basing a character around being the most raging barbarian/frenzied berserker around), it begins to become unbalanced compared to the rest of the party unless they follow suit. When one person plans on being a fighter that is good in melee, then another person goes into a weird chain of feats and PrCs that makes them the best in melee combat, the first person feels pretty useless. The same is true for spellcasters and what have you. Granted I play in large groups where some member invariably overlaps with another, this problem crops up a little more readily.
PrCs can encourage either powergaming or interesting character concepts, from my experience, although most certainly more of the former than the latter.
Hey, Tequila. I agree with you for the most part, that's why in the homebrew I'm building, Prestige Classes are parts of an organization; and instead of prerequirements, the character interested in the class undergoes a Prestige Quest. Having the prerequirements may not always be necessary, but would definitely help in the Quest.
An example would be the following. First, I have to mention that I've turned the Paladin into a Prestige Class. That said, being a Cleric with Mounted Combat certainly aids the character in his quest to become a Paladin, but the player could be running a Wizard who has strong religious beliefs. As long as he can pass the test, then he can progress in the class.
I always figured that was how PrCs were supposed to be. You needed to be taught by someone, somewhere. Like picking up a second class. Making my players RP out these things keeps munchkins away too. I like opening up the pre-reqs too. Would be interesting.
I'd love to know what you did with the Paladin too. But that's another thread.
Has anyone tried a 'prestige feat' type approach?
giving players extra abilities or feats similar to the prestige class abilities but within their own class?
how did it work?
It never came up much in my games due to a combination of my players not having an extreme interest in PrCs and my games never getting far into the mid levels, but at one point one player wanted the warweaver PrC for his caster. I offered to turn it's first class ability into a metamagic feat, but told him that I thought the later class abilities were overpowered. It turned out that he only really wanted the first one, so it worked out great!
The sad part is that every time I ask my DM for an alternate ability to flesh out a character concept I have I get told about several prestige classes I can take.....in a few levels. Meanwhile if you want a fast martial arts sword and boarder, play a fighter until you can take a PRC.
Also everytime I ask a player what type of special abilities they would like to have to complete their character concepts they look at me like I am speaking some foreign language and have cheese hanging from my nostrils. Then they answer with "I plan to take 3 levels of X class, multiclass to X for 4 more levels and then PRC into X for 5 levels before tapping into PRC X for the remainder".
Oh yes, this is the attitude that drives me up the wall! I've been fairly lucky in that I haven't played in too many games where everyone obsessed over PrCs, but I hate when DMs refuse to step away from The Rules!
Anyway, for my games, I'm pretty loose with PRCs as long as the characters can hit the mechanical requirements. At the end of the day, they're just classes and the main requirement I care about is alignment-restrictions. (No monk/barbarian/paladin/bards, or equivalent prestige variations, in my games. That would drive me insane.) The mechanical requirements do give them the illusion of prestige to the players though.
Really? Out of curiousity, why are alignment prereqs a sticking point for you?
TS
|
|
"NOBODY MOVE! THIS IS A THREADJACK!"
I'd love to know what you did with the Paladin too. But that's another thread.
The thread where I'm putting stuff together is here.
I don't have all the details in there, but I do have a good deal.
|
I can't really add much that hasn't already been said, but I will give my personal experiences on the matter. I played in a campaign where almost all the players had been playing D&D since 1st edition came out. When the game finally ended because several players and the DM moved, we had just hit 17th level and not a single one of the seven players had taken a prestige class. Some of us had thought about it, but in the end we could not see how any of them really improved our character without painting us into a corner role wise. Our DM was a generalist when it came to adventures, one adventure we could be fight the Cult of Dragons and the next we could be fighting pirates in a Spelljammer. So ultimately it payed for us to be generalists as well. PrCs are great when you're campaign sticks to a set theme, like constantly hunting undead and the like, but for us fun was never knowing what the next adventure would bring and so PrCs did not really work in our campaign.
The fallacy exists because too many people disregard the following paragraph:
"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The following prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself." (3.5 DMG pg. 176)
Class and Class Ability Variants (such as the OGL ones in Unearthed Arcana) can be used, along with custom feats, to reduce the need for prestige classes. The only real need for prestige classes is to make certain multiclass combinations involving spellcasters viable (although the battle sorcerer shows it's not 100% necessary in all cases).
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the concept of PrCs, in the framework of how 3rd/3.5 was presented, but as others have said, specific implementations failed miserably, notably PrC that seemed to exist to make you "even more" of what you class was already suppose to be.
PrCs are sometimes the best way to work something. Paladin/Blackguard is a great example (thanks Cato! I may follow your lead there). When they're actually part of something larger, they seem to work better. They aren't NEEDED to play, but when used correctly seem to work very well. But it's up to the player and DM for your style of play to decide what is correct.
In my group the players prefer to chase and work towards their goals more. So they have to RP out getting new classes or joining groups.
In response to the last post by Logos;
That's quite a rant.
Firstly, I don't think the OP needs to get statistics on how many of us like/dislike PrC's to give evidence to his idea that PrC's are a fallacy. And I don't think he's suggesting that everyone who likes them is wrong. Maybe you are taking all this a little too personally.
I would also suggest that DMing for PrC's is a lot harder than playing them. Keeping a game moving and in balance becomes exponentially more difficult when trying to factor in all these other pieces of information. The poster who mentioned players that "take X of this then Y of that PrC" knows exactly what I'm talking about. In one of our games we had a half celestial with classes in about four PrC's. The other players would all just roll their eyes when this guy would shrug off all kinds of stuff. Really unbalanced. Just reeks of munchkinism.
In my view, the DM must have the final say. He's invested the time in the adventure, he's largely responsible for everyone else's sense of fun and he has to concentrate on myriad things at any given time. It's an artform. Good DM's are something to treasure. So rather than reducing the OP's comments to "us and them", try to understand where he's coming from and realise that he's got alot more to think about than just one character sheet.
I really like the concept of the PrC as well. I did implement one house rule concerning them however- once you enter a PrC you must follow it thru until the end. I think this helps keep the role of them in the campaign as it should be- a goal of the character instead of a way to gain additional power. The player must also work these goals into their history and pursue them during the campaign.
So far it has worked fairly well.
My apologies to anyone who thought that my OP was describing a serious fallacy. It wasn't; it was just me getting a pet peeve of mine off my chest, and seeing how others felt on the issue. So thanks for listening everyone!
TS
I have no problem with Prestige Classes.
Well, not quite true. I have no problem with the idea of Prestige Classes.
I do have a problem with how they seem to be perceived, especially with certain types of players. I dislike that a large percentage of players take the idea of Prestige Classes as a right not a privilege.
I dislike that they are used primarily for power. I dislike that people 'dip' into them.
I dislike that most Prestige Classes are not associated with specific role playing, in-game training or organizations.
|
I sure as hell wouldn't put up with a gm that even begins to put his enjoyment above mine. If want to talk about it in terms of fun, I always saw the gm as someone who deriving fun from the extra bits about being a gm (otherwise why would they) have a bit of a headstart in the fun race, and thus should focus on the players a bit (like a good host).
Everyone, EVERYONE sitting at the game table is entitled to and should be having equal shares of fun!
If a player is not having fun, everyone looks to the DM to remedy the situation...
But what if that one person not having fun IS the DM??? What, he should suck it up, and just enjoy his "extra bits"?
Poppycock!!!
As a DM, I design a campaign to have fun. If I don't want this or that rule, class, feat, spell, or what-have-you, it doesn't get put in. Being able to do that is, IMHO one of those "extra bits" you speak of...
One is certainly welcome not to play in my campaign if not being able to have that spell, feat, or class somehow prevents them from having fun. But I don't make those rulings to somehow trump anyone’s idea of fun...
There are many prestige classes I do not like, nor allow within my campaign, does that mean I am too controlling a DM??
Just my rant on the subject...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It's cool to see a bunch of old-timers on this thread, and that there are still people interested in plain old 3.5 (nothing against those upgrading, but just sticking with my own preferences).
Thoughts on Prestige Classes:
1. I like them, but with limits. As a player, I've had some really cool character concepts that were inspired by the combination of reading about a prestige class in a supplement and thinking about the setting the character is going to be part of. This is especially true when starting a character at higher levels--at first level, it should be rare for a character to have particular aspirations, unless it's just sort of a general drive to become an honorable knight of some order or be an all-powerful archmage or something. As a DM, PrC's often inspire ideas--for a villain, for an organization, or something else cool to add to my game.
2. I generally frown on anyone taking levels in more than one prestige class. I'm much happier to extend an existing PrC, perhaps tailored to provide some of the abilities they want. I'm also happy to have players generate their own, and bounce it back and forth a bit until it's balanced and not overpowered. I'm even happy to make up a PrC that fits both the player's desires and my campaign--a lot of players may have slight munchkin tendencies, but what they are really looking for is something with a few cool special abilities that allows them to feel like a unique character. Often, with a little thought, you can provide that without compromising your game.
3. It should be acknowledged that there is a wide variability in PrC power level--some are really wimpy, some are way overpowered, and of course with all the available splatbooks, there are dozens of ways to break the game if the DM will let you.
I've been following this thread, since it echoes feelings I have too. This comment:
2. I generally frown on anyone taking levels in more than one prestige class. I'm much happier to extend an existing PrC, perhaps tailored to provide some of the abilities they want. I'm also happy to have players generate their own, and bounce it back and forth a bit until it's balanced and not overpowered. I'm even happy to make up a PrC that fits both the player's desires and my campaign--a lot of players may have slight munchkin tendencies, but what they are really looking for is something with a few cool special abilities that allows them to feel like a unique character. Often, with a little thought, you can provide that without compromising your game.
which pretty much sums up how I feel and how we handle things in my (when I DM) games. Except, I'm blessed with non-munchkin players. It works because the player gets something unique, and not all members of the PrC are going to be the same. Sometimes my players need prodding outside of the box though. Our wizard received an invitation to join a PrC, which included "Knights of the [X]" as their name. He immediately shouted in despair "But I'm a wizard!" After I explained 'what's in a name?' and he calmed down, we had some sensible discussion on the topic.
I still feel where 3rd edition went wrong, with regard to PrCs, was putting the PrCs in the player books, not the DM books. No players even mentioned PrCs, even though they all had the DMG too, until those soft cover player books came out (Song and Silence et al). At least, in my gaming experience. I can understand that WotC wanted the DM to buy these books too, but it was a bum move that, IMHO, ultimately drove some people from D&D, the craziness of PrC accounting for, at least, a part of this.
Peace,
tfad
|
|
I still feel where 3rd edition went wrong, with regard to PrCs, was putting the PrCs in the player books, not the DM books.
Hell yeah! Spot on!
The "DM books" aren't private any more. That's just, I guess, a casualty of the publishing business and the drive to get EVERYONE to buy the books. IMHO, the game has suffered for it.
So the op comes complaining about the prevalence of prc's and those who like them, I say that if the majority like them they are probably onto something, and then i get told that I'm in the majority (ignoring the polite and reasonable explanations that im in the minority in this thread that came after).
The OP was not complaining about people using PrCs, but the mindset that they are required or even the most important aspect of a character. Prestige classes are a tool. When used correctly, they can increase the enjoyment of the game for the entire group; however, using them as a hammer (as in "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail") can detract from other aspects of the game.
Prestige classes are a tool. When used correctly, they can increase the enjoyment of the game for the entire group; however, using them as a hammer (as in "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail") can detract from other aspects of the game.
That really sums it up nicely. Well done!
tfad
|
|
Prestige Classes are simply a character customization mechanic. (And a way for WOTC to sell more books, eventually.)
They were put into 3E to replace 2E Kits, because taking a 2E Kit required rolling up a new character. The original 3.0 DMG PrCs were all about the characters evolving into new and interesting areas (Loremaster, Assassin, Blackguard, Shadowdancer, etc).
The gishy PrCs of the 3.5 DMG were added as a Band-Aid(c) for gishy multiclassing, which was (and is) broken by design. It can be argued that they dragged down the other PrCs, but that's not the fault of the mechanic.
IMNSHO, D&D 3.X needs a customization mechanic of some sort; otherwise the base eleven classes become stale over time. Feats help (a lot); another good option is the Class Variant mechanic from Unearthed Arcana.
The very best thing about PrCs is that they are optional. I've seen threads on this board where GMs say that all of their players go into PrCs, and threads where none did. It's really up to each player whether they want to deal with them or not.
|
|
I know this comment will seem like I peed in James Jacob's Post Toasties, but I'd like to see Pathfinder break away from the notion that game designers should be "rendering" PrCs for DMs and players. I'd like to see James, Jason, Sean, & co., sit down and develop a 5 page layout of all the powers, added feats & bonuses that could exist for a custom PrC - - then publish a section on how to build a custom PrC for YOUR campaign, whatever and where ever that might be.
Because I also desire back-ward compatibility, this suggestion does not come at any expense to stop production of whever is going on now to make PRPG sit on top of v.3.5, however, it would be nice to see a PAIZO chapter called Building Prestige for Your Campaign.
Even after all this discussion, and I've participated in various PrC threads lately, I understand why they exist - and believe me I truly understand their intent and context and all that. I'm just begging for a new age in game design that provides GMs with the WHAT, not the HOW. Give us the tools we need to be efficient and maximize our time, while still honoring the system we all enjoy. Break it down, and let us build it back up. Put the creativity back in the hands of the mighty partnership between GM and player, not (as they have done for 4e) reduce the GM to a mere optional referee, and not (as they did in the past) display the SPLAT of myriad PrCs that we can't use and don't want. Let us determine the permutation that fits, just provide us with the elegance of your expertise as game designers to break it down into buildable, sensable, balanceable bits.
Just my two cp for the day! Thanks for listening.
I know this comment will seem like I peed in James Jacob's Post Toasties, but I'd like to see Pathfinder break away from the notion that game designers should be "rendering" PrCs for DMs and players. I'd like to see James, Jason, Sean, & co., sit down and develop a 5 page layout of all the powers, added feats & bonuses that could exist for a custom PrC - - then publish a section on how to build a custom PrC for YOUR campaign, whatever and where ever that might be.
Wait -- you want the designers to write EVERY POSSIBLE alternate class feature or prestige class power in 5 PAGES?
That better be some really, really tiny printing... :-) (just kidding!)
The OP was not complaining about people using PrCs, but the mindset that they are required or even the most important aspect of a character. Prestige classes are a tool. When used correctly, they can increase the enjoyment of the game for the entire group; however, using them as a hammer (as in "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail") can detract from other aspects of the game.
This is a great non-ranty way to say it!
TS
I know this comment will seem like I peed in James Jacob's Post Toasties, but I'd like to see Pathfinder break away from the notion that game designers should be "rendering" PrCs for DMs and players. I'd like to see James, Jason, Sean, & co., sit down and develop a 5 page layout of all the powers, added feats & bonuses that could exist for a custom PrC - - then publish a section on how to build a custom PrC for YOUR campaign, whatever and where ever that might be.
If I understood you corectly, your suggesting that they have a chapter detailing out all the different abilities the DM could use to create a Prestige Class and then essentially pick their own in order to create a class. If this is what your saying, I think it's a great idea. Excellent for helping DM's customize Prestige Classes for their world, oh, say like Greyhawk.
The little bit I did of creating my own Prestige Class was for a Giant Slayer. What I did is make a base template for the class and then modify the abiliites somewhat per region in Greyhawk, allowing more logical differences in combating giants throughout the Flanaess based on the terrain. Not only did the Prestige Class vary according to the terrain but it also created a unified Giant Slayer organization plus give a little ooomph to geographical regions as well.