Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?
The "Beyond the Core Rulebook" thread got me thinking: Why are Alternate Class Levels ok and PrCs not so much? I mean yea, WotC overdid the PrCs but when are PrCs ok and when are Alternate levels more appropriate? So here's my opinion, agree or disagree with me, but please state why, in either case.
PrCs should:
- Be narrowly focused. Classes should be able to be used with a wide range of possibilities. Between feats, skill allocation, and various other choices, one member of a class should look very different from another member of a class. PrCs, by constrast, should have a much tighter focus. There should be very little variation between PrC member A and PrC member B. Should they be identical, no. But they should look alot more alike than not.
- Be flavorful. PrCs should be well... prestigious. They should mean something. Something like: you join a secret organization and you can now take levels in said PrC. IMO, PrCs like the Assassin should be merely a guide for PrCs like the Red Mantis Assassins in specific campaign settings. Generic PrCs should be made, but they should not be a dime a dozen. Generic PrCs should be more presented as a design base for a specific PrC. The Legendary Weapon section of Unearthed Arcana are exactly what I am talking about. The Battle Scion is an excellent generic PrC for the Drakeblade PrC to be in a specific setting.
- Not duplicate classes. If I want evasion, there are classes with it. I shouldn't have that option in a PrC, now that the XP barrier to multiclassing is gone. Besides, evasion is generic. If evasion were in a PrC, it should be in the (for example) Fire Bender PrC, but only apply to spells with the fire descriptor.
- Be more powerful than base classes IN ONE LITTLE AREA and not be even nearly as good in alot more areas. I know this one is controvercial, but I am going to include it anyways. If I am taking a PrC that allows me to use the Orc Double Axe better than anyone else in the world, I should be better than everyone else in the world. That's ok. I'm a player, I should be able to have that. But take away that from me (or throw me a situation where an ODA isn't all that helpful) and I should notice a power dropage. If I take a PrC that make me an excellent enchanter, I should be awesome. I should Michael Phelps that Charm Person spell. But my necromancy had better suffer for it. I shouldn't be as good as a single class wizard in all other areas because I'm spending all my time working on my enchantment. If the Beguiler was a PrC, the requirements should be both "evasion" and "spell focus(enchant and illusion)" You should gain more spells at a faster rate for those two schools, but not go up at all for all other schools.
By contrast, Alternate Class Levels should:
- Be very, very generic. These should feel just as generic as a base class.
- Be themed. Don't confuse genericity with a lack of a theme. A barbarian from the frozen north should look different than one from the hot deserts than one from the red planet, but they should all be 1) recognizible as barbarians, 2) fit their respective environment well, 3) allow for a wide range of character builds.
- Allow for racial variations. An elf bard playing a whistle should have something that a dwarf bard banging tin plates together (to te tune of Conan the Barbarian) doesn't have, and vice versa. But they should do it without a PrC because they are merely variations on the same class instead of requiring admition into a secret order of tin plate bangers.
That's just my take on it. Discuss.
Where would you place addressing gaps in the system? For instance the duelist PRC seems like it was originally created to address the lack of a lightly armored swashbuckler archetype. Then the Swashbuckler base class came out, and I also believe that there were some swashbuckler/duelist type replacement levels created.
So in your mind, how best to address such a gap?
Interesting topic. I have not been a favor of PrC's except for 1 o2 2. When I roll crappy stats then I'll go to the Warshaper class and cherry pic it for the str&con bonus(we always house rule it so that the bonuses apply in your Normal form ONLY,otherwise too powerful) still the con and str bonus pale compared to the 1st lvl ability of you can no longer be crited or stunned. The second one is the planes shifter, it takes forever to get the ability but being able to bring planular effects in a 100+ yrd radius is great when you need it, plus the other stuff is cool too. Those are the only PrC's that I have ever played because the others just seem so weak compared to the normal class lvl. One major grip: ANYTHING THAT COSTS A SPELLCASTER TO SLOW SPELL PROGRESSION IS WRONG,BAD,EVIL,AND JUST DUMB. If your going to take a prestige class then dont slow down caster progression.
My wish list would be for a PrC that would be metamagic focused and have lower casting lvls as the main benny, the second would be a item creation focus(please dont limit it to just the short,cute,frodo races) where you can make either more powerful item quicker or just double the charges in an item,etc. Thats my take on PrC's
So in your mind, how best to address such a gap?
Fighter with particular feat choices. The Dualist could serve as a great template to make a dread pirate PrC for a pirate based setting. But the swashbuckler is nothing more than just a specialized fighter. I wouldn't even say it ranks even Alternate Class Levels worthy. Now that there are no "max half skill ranks" penalty for cross class skills, a fighter that takes Diplomacy and Acrobatics isn't a big deal.
Other examples: Bladesinger is a great setting specific PrC. It shouldn't be a generic PrC. Warshaper is a great generic PrC that is narrow in focus (focuses on shaping abilities). It can be used to make a setting specific PrC for a certain druid order.
But to get back to your base question: what you call "gaps in the system," I called "not duplicating classes."
I like the thinking behind the two.
So set of alternate class features could be like: Different wilderness stride abilities for Druids. Because honestly that woodland stride isn't going to do you much good in the mountains, the artic, in the desert.
I like the thinking behind the two.
So set of alternate class features could be like: Different wilderness stride abilities for Druids. Because honestly that woodland stride isn't going to do you much good in the mountains, the artic, in the desert.
Bingo! Exactly what I'm talking about.
[Prestige classes should be flavourful, like the Red Mantis Assassin.]
Organization-based prestige classes are nice when I like the flavour of the organization, but they're terrible when I dislike the flavour. So, all things considered, I'd rather have a prestige class with a general focus that I can adapt to an existing organization rather than a prestige class with a specific focus that's tied to an organization.
An example of the latter type of prestige class is the Shackles Pirate PrC from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting; the only difference between a Shackles Pirate and a plain, ol' rogue are a handful of way too specific abilities. On the other hand, I think the Low Templar prestige class is pretty interesting because the idea of a "tarnished knight" is a more universal trope.
So, all things considered, I'd rather have a prestige class with a general focus that I can adapt to an existing organization rather than a prestige class with a specific focus that's tied to an organization.
Exactly. I want only a few general, low flavor PrCs to appear in the PFRPG books that can be adapted into several specific, high flavor PrCs in setting specific material in places like Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Chronicles.
I like the Low Templar for the same reason. It presents a good general way presenting its core concept. Now imagine someone taking it and putting tieing in a cleric theme instead of a fighter theme. Make a few modifications and you have divine caster PrC. And someone else making it someone that walked away from nature and became a merc. And someone else walking away from ...
Granted anyone could have done that before (and many have) but what if the books were written this way. You would still have your low flavor PrCs from the base PFRPG books, and those that love specific-flavored PrCs would get those as well from Golarion specific material. Good idea?
Haha...found the thread. I was wondering where it had gone too.
So... anyone have a burning desire to share alternate take? When are PrCs good? When are PrCs bad?
So... anyone have a burning desire to share alternate take? When are PrCs good? When are PrCs bad?
I was a bit confused before; I thought you were in favour of organization-specific classes like Red Mantis Assassin, but re-reading your post I see that I misinterpreted it completely.
To me, "PrCs vs. alternate class features" is six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other. The only case where a prestige class really makes more sense is where it leverages off a high-level ability of a core class. For instance, the Master of Many Forms class requires the wild shape ability to enter, so it makes sense (to me, anyways) to have it as a prestige class; it's substantially different than the druid core class, but it naturally follows from it. Compare that to the Frenzied Berserker (like a barbarian, just rage-ier); that could easily handled with an alternate version of rage from level 1.
I was a bit confused before; I thought you were in favour of organization-specific classes like Red Mantis Assassin, but re-reading your post I see that I misinterpreted it completely.
Ehhh, rereading my posts, I can see I wasn't very clear. PrCs like the basic Assassin or the generic ones presented in UA are great for the PFRPG system books because they're basic and easily customizible. PrCs like the Red Mantis Assassin are good for setting specific material like Pathfinder APs.
PrCs like the Red Mantis Assassin are good for setting specific material like Pathfinder APs.
Organization-specific prestige classes a double-edged sword. When they're well done, they're great (like the Moonspeaker class from Races of Eberron I mentioned above). But what I don't care for is when there's a perfectly good idea for a prestige class and the game designers feel like they have to come up with a (half-baked) organization to justify it.
An example of that (IMO) is the Elemental Scion of Zilargo from Magic of Eberron; the basic idea is a warrior who sacrifices some fighting skill to get more use out of elemental grafts. So far, so good, but why do they need to add "of Zilargo" to the class name (I can't join the class if I live somewhere else?) and then come up with a quickie description of a secret society of elemental grafters who follow some kind of hokey philosophy? It didn't add anything (again, IMO).
The worst offenders are prestige classes that offer organizational benefits as class features. Stuff like:
"At 3rd level, you gain the right to consult the Great Limestone Icosahedron for advice."
"At 4th level, the Icosahedronites initiate you into the Order of the Trapezoid and give you a magic item of 4,000 gp value."
Those kind of benefits should be available to any organization member, regardless of class.
Organization-specific prestige classes a double-edged sword. When they're well done, they're great ...
The worst offenders are prestige classes that offer organizational benefits as class features. Stuff like:
"At 3rd level, you gain the right to consult the Great Limestone Icosahedron for advice."
"At 4th level, the Icosahedronites initiate you into the Order of the Trapezoid and give you a magic item of 4,000 gp value."Those kind of benefits should be available to any organization member, regardless of class.
Absolutely.
|
The wonderful FR sourcebook Champions of Valor consisted of tons of alternate class abilities based on organizations. It sees more use in my FR campaign than most of the other WoTC class or race books.
Based on that, I feel that organizations are almost always better represented by alternate class abilities, though the peak of an organization can be better served by a PRC.
Example:
A cleric serving an order dedicated to a War deity could have alternate abilities that trade out standard cleric abilities for War specific abilities. A PRC dedicated to a servant of that same deity would still function the same, but stand alone with or without the aforementioned order.
Prestige Classes have the real advantage, that they are available to many different combinations of classes. You can get an certain alternative class feature for a ranger only at level 14. You can't get it for a ranger 8/barbarian 8.
So class features work greatly in favor of single class characters, but those at higher levels are more or less impossible to get for multiclass characters. You might have intended that when you designed the feature, but it is something to consider.
Currently, I'm highly in favor of 5-level Prestige classes.
I like my PrCs to add something that can't be gained thru normal classes. Unique training. Otherwise they need to address weaknesses in multiclassing (i.e. the Eldritch Knight). Other than that, I highly favor alternate class abilities that reflect a different race's approach to the class. Elves favor lighter armor, so give them something to reflect that in the fighter class. I don't see most elves as training in Heavy armor & tower shields, at least not in my game world.
Most of the swashbuckler abilities could be used as a feat chain, so that would be an example of a variant fighter class, not really a need to give a whole new class.
I guess I just want designers to ask themselves when they make a PrC: Is this a PrC, or maybe just a set of high level feats?
I want class designers to ask: Is this a new class, or just new alternate abilities for an existing class?
Some PrCs could actually be better served as a base class, as they are intending to do with the blackguard. I think that the Arcane Archer is another one, like a modified approach to the PHB II Duskblade.
This post rambles a bit, so I think it is a little late for more posts, lol.
Prestige Classes have the real advantage, that they are available to many different combinations of classes. You can get an certain alternative class feature for a ranger only at level 14. You can't get it for a ranger 8/barbarian 8.
So class features work greatly in favor of single class characters, but those at higher levels are more or less impossible to get for multiclass characters. You might have intended that when you designed the feature, but it is something to consider.Currently, I'm highly in favor of 5-level Prestige classes.
A member of our group hates 5 level PrC's. They are supposed to be something to work towards/complete as he says. As 5 levels you could easily have 2 PrC's by the time you are 20th, and 3 with out much effort most times. What exactly makes a PrC "prestigous" when you can have 2 of them? Another of his complaints is that alot of the time 5 level PrC's try to cram too much into the 5 levels and that leads to quite a bit of "power creep" and encourage too much of the class "dipping."
I personally prefer the 10 level PrC's as they actually end up being more "flavorful" so to speak. The 10 levels give a PrC more room to develop and to space out/stagger the abilities or grant a number of appropriate abilities as it progresses. They actually can grow upon themselves. I don't have anything against 5 level PrC's but with few exceptions they they seem either lack luster because they don't get enough or seem too much like a core class, clipped as the abilities seem to be cut short or not expanded upon, or too powerful as they have too much crammed in the 5 level span. In all honesty, the majority of 5 level PrC's would probably be better served as being published as alternate class abilities if you think about it.
PrCs should:
Be more powerful than base classes IN ONE LITTLE AREA and not be even nearly as good in alot more areas. I know this one is controvercial, but I am going to include it anyways.
I disagree.
"not be even nearly as good"?
Really?
You're basically saying that prestige classes should trade lots of general power for a little specefic power.
That's almost always a bad trade off.
If you were shopping around for a martial arts class, and you found one that advertised "You'll suck at punching, kicking, blocking, takedowns, weapon training, and general self-defense, but you'll learn to be a master of choke holds" would you pick that school? Would that be the oly martial arts school you would attend?
Of course not.
If you were a Nascar driver, would you sacrifice maneuverability, visibility, stability, and driver safety, just to gain a little speed?
Of course not.
If I'm browsing through PrCs, I automatically ignore just about all of the ones that sacrifice everything to specialize in a niche. Even if I want that particular niche, I won't take that PrC for it.
Why?
Because you can't always expect that one niche to be the only thing you have to do, adventure after adventure, all the time.
No, I believe a good PrC should specialize in one area, but that doesn't mean you have to suddenly bring the suck to everything else you could be asked to do.
If I am taking a PrC that allows me to use the Orc Double Axe better than anyone else in the world, I should be better than everyone else in the world. That's ok. I'm a player, I should be able to have that. But take away that from me (or throw me a situation where an ODA isn't all that helpful) and I should notice a power dropage.
I would not invite your character to my adventuring group.
Let me clarify.
As a player, and you being another player in my gaming group, I would invite you since that's what we gamers do. I would question your character concept and the adviseability of taking your horrible PrC.
But if our two characters really existed somewhere in some alternate universe, and my character met yours in a bar where we were forming an adventuring group, and you asked to join my group, I would tell you to go take a hike.
Why?
Because I would be heading off to the scariest and most dangerous, hostile environment I can imagine. I would pick companions who might keep me alive through the dangerous adventure, and I would make training choices for myself to ensure I could do the same for my companions.
And I would look at your training and realize that if your weapon breaks, or gets damaged, sundered, stolen, or if we have to fight something against which your silly axe is ineffective, then suddenly you are ineffective, suddenly you are no longer a companion who can keep me alive through the dangerous adventure.
If I take a PrC that make me an excellent enchanter, I should be awesome. I should Michael Phelps that Charm Person spell. But my necromancy had better suffer for it. I shouldn't be as good as a single class wizard in all other areas because I'm spending all my time working on my enchantment. If the Beguiler was a PrC, the requirements should be both "evasion" and "spell focus(enchant and illusion)" You should gain more spells at a faster rate for those two schools, but not go up at all for all other schools.
Again, same problem.
You're gaining power in two schools and throwing away 6 schools?
My character would tell you to go take a hike too.
If I'm going to split my loot with you, then I will want you to beguile monsters, but I will also want buffs, diviniations, transportation, dispel magics, etc., to be in your complement of abilities, or I won't feel comfortable putting my life in your hands.
No, the right balance is to gain a little power/efficiency/mastery in a properly narrowed focus (orc double axe, enchantment, etc.) but to lose a little power/efficiencey/mastery somewhere else.
The key there is "a little".
This can be loss of a specific narrow focus, such as gaining power in enchantment but losing power in necromancy (just necromancy), or even 2-for-1 like gaining power in enchantment but losing power in necromancy and conjuration.
Or it could be a minor loss of general power, such as +1 hit and damage per 2 PrC levels with your orc double axe, plus weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical bonus feats with it, but you're -1 hit and damage with other weapons and cannot specialize with anything else. That would be barely noticeable as a "power droppage".
Those are, of course, just quick examples, not intended to be truly balanced.
All I'm saying is a PrC should balance out. You should not have to give up "alot more areas" to gain in just "IN ONE LITTLE AREA".
That's not balance at all, and it ruins PrCs that take this approach.
Lots o' stuff.
I should say that I prefer Alternate Class Levels to PrCs anyday.
Going back and reading my earlier posts on this thread, I gotta admit I do not express a clear concise answer at all. If I graded myself on this thread, I'd have to give myself a D or F. But frankly, I do not see a better way to express it. So maybe the ACL/PrC question doesn't really have a good answer and should simply be "I'll know it when I see it" kind of answer.