I have been here on the board for a while and I see a lot of distain for Prestige Classes and I am really wondering why? I think they are a great addition to the game it let players fill whatever nitch they want to fill. In my current game every single player is going into a Prestige Class. Of the characters I have played I would say over 75 percent were designed to go into Prestige Classes.
So I want to know is why people hate them so much. I understand why Pathfinder RPG made the core classes as good as Prestige Classes cause I agree with that you shouldn’t have to play a prestige class to be able to be a useful party member. I have said this for a long time that WOC made the core classes suck after 5th or 6th level so people would buy there Splat books to get Prestige Classes to use. So with how 3.5 was designed Prestige Classes are needed. Paizo so far in Golarion has been very Prestige Class light, is that because of them changing systems or a desire to get away from Prestige Classes?
|
I have been here on the board for a while and I see a lot of distain for prestige classes and I am really wondering why? I think they are a great addition to the game it let players fill whatever nitch they want to fill. In my current game every single player is going into a prestige class. Of the characters I have played I would say over 75 percent were designed to go into prestige classes.
So I want to know is why people hate them so much. I understand why Pathfinder RPG made the core classes as good as prestige classes cause I agree with that you shouldn’t have to play a prestige class to be able to be a useful party member. I have said this for a long time that WOC made the core classes suck after 5th or 6th level so people would buy there Splat books to get prestige classes to use.
I have no problem with them. I actually love them. To me, Prestige classes are tools to plot character growth. I am sorry, but a Spell Sword is simply a fighter mage that has learned to cast while wearing heavier and heavier armor, not some institution that trains select individuals after being a member for a year and paying tribute.
So, although I dont take them as written, I use them all the time.
CC
|
|
Dipping...plus
Many people only take 1 or 2 levels of a PrC as a way to min/max their current concept. PrCs are generally set-up to counter this...which is why I think some others don't like them, because the best PrC abilities are midway through.
Certain 3.x PrCs were just plain worthless due to loss of spell progression or 1/2 spell progression or a separate "hybrid" spell casting list, full of level 1-4 spells that are ineffective at upper levels.
|
while I don't dislike PrC's in general, I feel that too many starts to dilute the pool of options rather quickly.
Lessee...Abjurant Champion, Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, etc. You start to lose definition between them.
In my opinion, the (5? 6?) or so in the DMG are great additions to the game. Assassin...kills with 1 blow, fantastic. Dragon Disciple (especially the new PF updated one)...awesome transformative class that adds some melee oomph to the Sorcerer. Thaumaturge...super summoner and planar binder...
They all add something NEW to the game, rather than simply stacking new bonuses on top of old ones.
Now, there are some rather abusive PrC's out there (Frenzied Berserker, Thrallherd, Contemplative are first on my mind) that require finesse to pull off without breaking the game (I once saw a CharOP request for a thrallherd that ended up generating a cascading Thrallherd group-mind, operating under Metaconcert most of the time. The character "sheet" was a 3 ring binder about an inch thick).
If PFRPG releases more cool PrC's (Red Mantis Assassin, Duelist, and Dragon Disciple stand out as potential choices for me), I am sure we will start to see more and more people playing them. For now, though, I am happy with the Core 11 being upgraded and love that there's a reason to take, say, Fighter for more than 4 levels.
-t
Well... I and my game group do not hate prestige classes...we hate abusers of the system, lame prestige classes and min/maxers... I allow most prestige classes in my game but we have a few house rules to deal with these issues
Rule 1 No you can't have 3 Prestige classes...we only allow 1 10 level Prestige class to a character... As for 5 and 3 level Prestige classes...we allow a character to have 2 of them as long as they fit the character, the story and the campaign
Rule 2 You must apply for or be recruited by those who train the Pristige Classes.... Having an Order of Eldritch Knights who secretly watch and then recruit a perspective member adds more to the story, more to the character and make the class Prestigious
Rule 3 If it doesn't fit your campaign....Don't allow it....though as a GM I try to maintain a degree of openmindedness and even handedness sometimes the edict must be laid down.... Most players when you explain why a certain thing doesn't fit into your world are willing to accept it...and some of those who don't are willing to at least argue HOW they might fit in...and of course if their idea sounds good...USE IT... making the players happy is PART of the job as well as long as it doesn't disrupt the game and story line
For my group we really dont apply for the prestige classes but all the ones in my current RORL game make sense and fit with the game so im cool with that
Creative Director
|
I quite like prestige classes; I think that prestige classes, feats, and giving all monsters ability scores are the three greatest innovations that came out of 3rd edition, in fact.
I'm not as big a fan of prestige class bloat (or feat bloat), nor am I a fan of characters who do the dip and take one level of a prestige class here, 2 there, and so on. I think part of that problem is encouraged by the fact that there are so many different choices, it's hard to just choose one.
Hopefully, PFRPG prestige classes will be less prolific, and when they DO appear, they'll be supported by delightful flavor. Since I think prestige classes work best when they have a specific campaign world to draw inspiration from, as well, hopefully we'll be able to avoid dull ones. And overpowered ones as well.
Prestige classes should feel PRESTIGIOUS, but they shouldn't feel like obvious choices.
I quite like prestige classes; I think that prestige classes, feats, and giving all monsters ability scores are the three greatest innovations that came out of 3rd edition, in fact.
I'm not as big a fan of prestige class bloat (or feat bloat), nor am I a fan of characters who do the dip and take one level of a prestige class here, 2 there, and so on. I think part of that problem is encouraged by the fact that there are so many different choices, it's hard to just choose one.
Hopefully, PFRPG prestige classes will be less prolific, and when they DO appear, they'll be supported by delightful flavor. Since I think prestige classes work best when they have a specific campaign world to draw inspiration from, as well, hopefully we'll be able to avoid dull ones. And overpowered ones as well.
Prestige classes should feel PRESTIGIOUS, but they shouldn't feel like obvious choices.
We'd love to see some new and interesting PrC with balance and the ability to fit into ANY game... Though I'm digging on many of the Golarion PrC so far... If you guys need any help let me know...lol
Take a look at the Marshall thread we've got going...some good discussion there for a Core Class
I like prestige classes. I agree with what James said about dipping... they don't feel all that special if you're just hopping from one to the other to cherry pick the plumpest feats.
This can kill dramatic narrative.
Can you imagine an epic fantasy movie about a guy who starts off as an elven paragon for the first two of three levels before becoming a wizard, then he tries his hand at making mechanical lions with a master of constructs school, then journeys a few miles away to learn how to create walls of protective color with a different elite school, then becomes an archmage, and then takes an epic wizard prestige class? That wouldn't really feel like an epic fantasy story, would it? It would be a character study about a medieval flibbertigibbet who lacks focus. I'm not shelling out money to watch ME in a rennie outfit.
|
I like them but as James said, only if they're supported by the flavor. I could see each religion getting a prestige class or in special cases like the HellKnights and Pathfinders.
I found many of the 3.5 prestige classes to be unnecessary like the arcane specialists in prismatic, force and rune spells or the fighter types which all seemed the same except they had different titles with words like reaver, templar or slayer thrown in. And I never liked any of the bard, druid or barbarian choices.
Luckily I didn't experience too much dipping but I can see why people hold that against prestige classes. I would certainly hate it if I had to DM too much of that.
Like other folks are saying, I like good prestige classes (and good base classes and good feats and good spells, etc., etc.). What does "good" mean? Well, a "bad" class feature (or feat or spell, etc., etc.) is one that makes you ask "Why would anyone want to take that instead of something good?"
For instance, the Shadowdancer's class features get worse (mostly) after level 1, rather than being just as good or better. That's a bad prestige class.
Exactly my issues.
What he said. :)
I don't hate prestige classes. I do hate brokenness (and a low threshold for it). It's the prestige classes that are 100% improvements over a base class, with requirements that a member of that class would be stupid *not* to have in the first place, that drive me nuts. Archmage is a great example - the only prereq of note is Skill Focus(Spellcraft) - which is even a good choice once you go epic. Funny enough, Heirophant is a counter example.
|
Agree with everyone else just about.
I like Prestige Classes, but I don't like the bloat. By the end of 3rd Edition, there were 782 Prestige Classes published by WotC. Some made sense based on a 'combination' of classes (Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge) or from a story perspective (Red Wizard of Thay, Heir of Siberys) and some were just cool ideas (Drunken Master, Tempest). But probably about 75% of them are just bad.
|
|
I really like prestige classes, and I like having a lot of choices. The thing you have to remember (not directed at anyone in particular) is that, just because it's in print, doesn't mean you have to use (or allow) it in your game/campaign. It's best to pick and choose which ones fit your campaign/setting and allow access to them, ideally with some world-specific changes/additions/flavor, etc.
The problem with Prestige Classes is that they're more of the same; a bunch of stuff that doesn't quite fit what I envision for my character. Base classes are fundamental enough that with feats you can build out a lot of variety. PCs collapse that variety into one particular freak build.
I would far, far rather see class feature alternatives. Give me a menu of equivalent capabilities and let me pick what fits my character, again like feats.
|
|
Agree with everyone else just about.
I like Prestige Classes, but I don't like the bloat. By the end of 3rd Edition, there were 782 Prestige Classes published by WotC. Some made sense based on a 'combination' of classes (Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge) or from a story perspective (Red Wizard of Thay, Heir of Siberys) and some were just cool ideas (Drunken Master, Tempest). But probably about 75% of them are just bad.
To be fair, most of those prestige classes were campaign specific and didn't fit outside of their settings very well. That said...
The problem with the prestige classes in splatbooks is that they are not campaign specific. Knight Protectors, Thayan Knight, Fochlucan Lyricist, etc... no longer do they have anything to do with the worlds they were originally intended for. By 3.5 DMG they had the Red Wizard as a generic prestige class in all but words, which is aberrant to the nature of what a prestige class should be though.
I don't see bloat as the problem, so much as generalization of prestige classes.
Slight Derailing
Archmage is a great example - the only prereq of note is Skill Focus(Spellcraft) - which is even a good choice once you go epic. Funny enough, Heirophant is a counter example.
How is Skill focus anything good its one of the worst feats in the game so I wouldnt say its good. With the limited amount of Wizard feats you have to plan your character into archmage since it needs three feats to get in and in 3.5 thats over half his feats by the time he can qualify for Archmage
Now back to this great discussion
I don't care for presitge class bloat either. However, a few well thought out prestige classes make for an interesting world.
In my own 3.5 homebrews, I have used 3-level presitge classes to represent different schools of fighting styles. They worked pretty well and allowed me to introduce feats that had the prestige class abilities as requirements (which reinforced the prestigious nature of the class).
So prestige classes work well in the right circumstances.
|
|
I dislike that they encourage/force the players to think in terms of 'planned builds' right from the start of the campaign.
It makes it very difficult to introduce a helpful NPC or organisation, for the PCs to join, only to be told they can't, because they didn't take a (frankly, unlikely) specific pattern of feats and skills.
This cropped up in our SCAP game, when the DM seemed a bit disappointed that no-one wanted to take up the offer to join a local society to stick it to the rulers of Cauldron.
Our reply was; even if we wanted to, we've had no prior warning, we've just levelled and picked feats, we won't get new ones for another 3 levels.
Ideally, they should have multiple means of entry, at least one of which should be more (if not all) role-playing oriented, or in the form of a skill challenge.
Why do I dislike Prestige Classes?
1. Because players think they are a right not a privilege Planned 'Builds'
2. Because they are often taken for the powers (not the character/roleplaying concept)
3. Planned 'Builds'
4. Because they are often lame
5. Because people 'dip'
6. Because they introduce broken powers/concepts that players think they have a right to receive
Note:
I like the idea of prestige classes and have no difficulties working with a player to arrange their character getting a prestige class (which can mean altering or waiving entry requirements). But it must fit the game and the character and it is not the players right of receive whatever prestige class they desire.
|
Like a lot on here I like the idea of PrC's but the problem is often how they are used. Plus they are often wildly different in power levels. Some just blew the core classes away and others where better balanced.
Things PrC's need is to have good powers for the whole time with their best at the end or near the end of the levels.
They need good fluff and flavor. There needs to be more to them than just need x bab, number of skill ranks ect to take them.
They need to be balanced with the core classes.
They need a niche something that makes them stand out and fill a niche. Even if said niche is for RP reasons like a Assassin. (since anyone can be a assassin)
They shouldn't be so tightly entwined that they lose a lot of their luster outside of their narrow focus. (yeah I know the last two are kinda counter points, it's a fine balance)
anyways all i can think of off the top of my head.
But since we are talking about them, I have a question for James or any other Paizo peep. Will you guys be doing a free PDF update of the collected PrC's for Pathfinder 3.5 books updated to PFRPG rules in the near future?
|
|
Prestige Classes are poorly named. They should be called Secondary Classes one of the WotC designers talked about somewhere before and I agree. They're a useful tool in helping you craft the character you want. IE making the image of how your character works mechanically in your head mesh with what it can do on the game table.
The main problem I'd imagine was the power creep that happens in a lot of games, so that later on most of the DMG PrC were pretty weak compared to things out of the Complete or Race books. The second problem was if you had no idea what you were doing, it was an easy way to cripple your character by loosing spell/BAB progression or giving up other good class abilities without an equally useful trade off. So we end up with Sorcerer 5/Dragon Disciples that now suck equally at magic as they do at melee combat.
I'm all for Prestige Classes and the like in my gaming, since customizing your character is totally how it works in 3rd edition (unlike 4th, lol!) Skills, Feats, and your class all help add up to your character be it a straight level bard or some hodgepodge of wizard/cleric classes.
That said, the basic core classes should be able to hold up to them. They shouldn't be better then, or at least /that/ much better then the fighter or wizard, etc.
I can definitely see the problems presented by Generalized PrC's... But there also should be a FEW generic vehicles in the prestige classes...because of the Archtypical nature of a handful of them... Guild Thief... Guild Wizard.... Warpriest...Beastmaster
The Key...to me at least...is HOW the PrC is conceived as both a part of the world and in the characters mind... I do not mind a planned build for a character...that can be as much a flavor thing as a mechanical thing...as long as the character has a CONCEPT... a BACKGROUND...and a REASON...for the build...you wanna have a horde of critters...you go Beastmaster...unless you wanna summon are horde of critters...then its Summoner...
That said I do PREFER flavor prestige classes...it enlivens the setting, the game, the players concepts... To me being recruited by the Shining Path...Order or Inquisitors... Order of the Bow.... SNow Leopard Lodge adds to the whole game... but the Priest of the Wargod should have fairly easy access to Warpriest, A wizard or rogue in a city with a Guild might be required to belong to said guild...or face fines or punishment...this opens those PrC's to characters...
It ALL boils down to what the DM and the Players can all agree on in the end... Some PrC's are obviously broken... Ultimate Magus...OMG... but the IDEA of PrC's is still good and valid...
You must find a Balance point for the PrC....they must enhance all aspects of the game from playability to flavor... no your plains tribe halfling rogue can't pick up street fighter since you have yet to spend more than a week in the city and all of that in the inns drinking with the dwarf...
You also have to balance the enjoyment level of your players... Some players are Builders...they just work that way...you just need to encourage creativity and RP into those builds... why do you wanna build the chain fighting rogue...(wicked build btw since it doesn't get much more flat footed than tripped)Anyone who wants to RP the build as it grows also works for me...
We have a few simple house rules for PrC's to discourage DIPPING and they seem to work well
Rule 1 No you can't have 3 Prestige classes...we only allow 1 10 level Prestige class to a character... As for 5 and 3 level Prestige classes...we allow a character to have 2 of them as long as they fit the character, the story and the campaign
Rule 2 You must apply for or be recruited by those who train the Prestige Classes.... Make it PRESTIGIOUS
Rule 3 If it doesn't fit your campaign....Don't allow it....though as a GM I try to maintain a degree of openmindedness and even handedness sometimes the edict must be laid down....
So its really up to the group GM/players to keep PrC's from breaking the Game... I think we've done a fairly good job in our group just by following these rules for PrC
So as long as the PrC is balanced in Power... I wanna see them...I'd like to see a whole Book Devoted to GOOD prestige Classes and Perhaps a Few New CORE CLASS as well
I agree there is alot of crap out there when it comes to prestige classes I tell the Players at the very begining if you are going to take a prestige class check it with me so we can make sure it goes with the story we are doing
My players this time around have done a great job with there classes and trying to tie them to the story of there characters much more then we have done in the past
Rule 1 No you can't have 3 Prestige classes...we only allow 1 10 level Prestige class to a character... As for 5 and 3 level Prestige classes...we allow a character to have 2 of them as long as they fit the character, the story and the campaign
This is a good house rule...IF the DM is willing to tinker with 10 level prestige classes to make every level worth taking. There are all too many prestige classes that have great flavour and a few interesting abilities, but are really not worth taking past a certain level.
I actually had a player in a campaign ask if he could get a free 'bonus feat' if he 'finished' the prestige class he was going through (i.e. took all ten levels). I simply said if that were the case, what should I give the two players that had stuck with a core class the entire time?
You should give them cool stuff. Everyone should get cool stuff for sticking with a class. Players should feel giddy with delight at the prospect of getting another level in a given class. If a player is feeling "well, the next few levels of class X are crappy, but I'll eventually get something interesting", that class is a failure.
|
|
I actually had a player in a campaign ask if he could get a free 'bonus feat' if he 'finished' the prestige class he was going through (i.e. took all ten levels). I simply said if that were the case, what should I give the two players that had stuck with a core class the entire time?You should give them cool stuff. Everyone should get cool stuff for sticking with a class. Players should feel giddy with delight at the prospect of getting another level in a given class. If a player is feeling "well, the next few levels of class X are crappy, but I'll eventually get something interesting", that class is a failure.
Oh they got plenty of cool stuff. The two that had stuck with core classes were playing a warlock and a samurai.
Because all too many players take them for a 1 or 2 level dip and then out.
In my current campaign, there is a dwarf fighter who specializes in wielding two dwarven waraxes. As they made 7th level, he asked the other players if he should take a one level dip in rogue to get the d6 sneak attack damage for almost all his attacks, since the party rogue or monk is flanking whomever he is hitting 95% of the time.
Too many prestige classes (in 3.5) have the same kind of one level dip problems.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Rule 1 No you can't have 3 Prestige classes...we only allow 1 10 level Prestige class to a character... As for 5 and 3 level Prestige classes...we allow a character to have 2 of them as long as they fit the character, the story and the campaignThis is a good house rule...IF the DM is willing to tinker with 10 level prestige classes to make every level worth taking. There are all too many prestige classes that have great flavour and a few interesting abilities, but are really not worth taking past a certain level.
QFT
Some of the issue is that darned word "prestige" - is it just a secondary class, or does it have to be "prestigious." An unfortunate word choice that has plagued opinions about them ever since.
Also, having a planned build that is mechanically advantageous is not and never has been contrary to role-playing. My STAP character was by the end of the campaign a Beguiler 12/Mindbender 1/Rainbow Servant 1/Sacred Exorcist 6 with a very specific and well-defined personality, thoroughly enjoyable roleplay, and well-developed in-game rationale for the evolution of his character through those classes. So nyeah... :)
(and my cohort was a Ranger 2/Scout 5/Olman Demonhunter 10/Demonwrecker 1... so maybe I'm biased... :)
And, as someone who usually DMs rather than plays, what exactly is it that vexes so many DMs about players wanting to multiclass or 'dip' into other classes. I agree it's a mechanical problem when you can get scads of class abilities at 1st (like a 3.0 ranger, frex), but if a particular class has AN ability at 1st level that you want to add... what exactly is the problem again?
I mean, do you as a DM have more fun playing the game when players have "pure" single-classed characters? Is there a narrative difference between a "Robin Hood" character who is a Rgr 10 and a "Robin Hood" character who is a Ranger 2/Fighter 4/Bard 2/Order of the Bow Initiate 1/Arcane Archer 1 (just to throw out a random example)? Does that change the roleplay or the story possibilities of the character in some way?
I mean, I'm honestly curious as to:
1. What is gained for the benefit of the DM and the rest of the players by restriction to a single 10-level PrC in a non-mechanical sense.
2. What is gained MECHANICALLY by the DM and other players by the restriction. I mean, you don't have to manage the player's character sheet, so ultimately why should you care if they have one line on their "classes" space or five?
Sure, there are poorly defined or poorly built classes out there, and that's the place for the DM to intervene, I think, rather than asserting a blanket "dipping is inherently bad because certain classes can be/have been shown to be abusable."
I dislike them, Ive never been one to "Build" a character. I enjoy playing characters that grow and develop "naturally".
RPing into a PrC would be nice, if a DM could handle that, I could see it being ignored or abused that way.
I guess I may just dislike Multiclass charaters too. If you could get a PrC that didnt cause you to Multiclass that would be nice.
PrC's arent new to D&D though....the Bard was one so was the Theif-Acrobat back in 1e. 2e Had kits...something I rather disliked too.
Ive been toying with some Ideas to replace PrC'c in a campaign I'll start when the PFRPG is released, a hybrid of sorts.
Eric
|
|
I'm somewhat different than those above, but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
I've never had much of a problem with PrC, but I do think there are some PrC that just shouldn't be allowed to players. Chameleon from the Races of Destiny, Assassin (unless it's an evil or neutral group), or Blackguard. These are really hard to get into, and may not jive that well with others.
I've had 1 player who's ever tried dipping. He was a Human Psionic Rogue 2/Psionic Warrior 8/ Chosen of Kyuss 3/ Elocator 1. And he died. A lot. Cost him a lot of gold and levels coming back again and again. He had fun though, so there was no big deal.
Even Frenzied Berserker, which I've been told is one of the more broken PrC and I'm dealing with now for the first time, doesn't seem that bad. They are having fun, and the character has been to -40 and lower multiple times. Making sure she lives makes for fun situations, and that wouldn't be there with just a barbarian.
I don't like overpowered PrC, but I have players (other than the one above) who really really like their PrC, and want to complete them. They make them prestigious, and min/maxing is usually what ruins it for people.
I think I'm averse to "Class Bloat" (Prestige + new Base Classes), because it expands the rules necessary to keep track of: On one end of things, Posters here have mentioned 'screwing up their character' because the "flavor" seemed good but they didn't analyze the entire mechanical implications at all levels (while said flavor COULD have been portrayed by the Base Classes in 99% of cases). On the other end of things, different mechanics BECOME the motivating factor for players, rather than a factor which recedes into the background.
Basically, I don't see the value of increasing the amount of time needed to have rule mastery at the expense of time spent RPing, preparing backstory/encounters, etc. If the DM isn't on top of every class 100%, players can pull tricks out of their bag that are "100% legal" but can easily destroy scenarios that took time to develop... Spending time to tailor the adventure to CHARACTERS and PERSONAS is great, spending time to balance thousands of variant rule sub-systems just seems to get away from the core of story-telling. It also seems to lead to a greater gap between "newbies" and "rules experts", which at this point for me, is a pointless hierarchy to pursue/ cultivate.
For me, D&D is the MOST complicated I want in a game system. Simpler systems exist and are great - D6 for example is very "flat", you can't really optimize or exploit beyond having a really high stat and over-concentrating ranks in "combat skills" - which has diminishing returns. Honestly, I think there's clearly an audience of gamers for which mastering a vast library of class combos and options is a big part of the game itself - something as simple as D6 would probably feel like taking away their candy.
I think to a limited degree, options beyond "Core" ARE OK, simple Class Variants like in Paizo's Golarion Campaign Setting, and things like Favored Soul... Beguiler is probably as far as I want to push it, but dealing with 10 new classes "equvialent" to Beguiler but all unique, just seems like too much rules to me. Another factor is probably "balance": A huge amount of time is spent balancing the Core Classes, and maintaining that standard for every PrC/new Base Class just has not been a reality in 3.5.
[/rant]
Prerequisites and eligibility became too important to my players. There was a time where we took abilities to do something cool. Prestige classes seemed so cool that building a character quickly became a means to an end. People start making choices they don't like just to get into the class, or having to rewrite history to become eligible.
My personal solution was to offer my players any prestige class at any level if there was a story-appropriate reason for it. No pre-requisites. That seemed to fix it, and now I love the prestige classes.
PrCs are also a huge source of dickishness, or so I've seen online, with respect to power combinations that are just silly. If people find character creation more fun than the game, that's fine, but for my group that style is very off-putting. Luckily, the above house-rule controls for that problem as well.
I see no purpose for PrCs because you sacrifice too much and gain too little. Any single-classed cleric makes a better, more powerful, more versatile Hunter of the Dead than the PrC of the same name. Rare is the PrC that offers me something I can't get otherwise AND that is worth sacrificing all other benefits of my base class.
I see a few reasons for PrC classes:
1. Combos. A wizard fighter? Eldritch Knight or Spellsword (I like having these two since they offer completely different things) Barbarian sorcerer that "You won't like me when I'm angry" Rage Mage (Just wish it was a little more casting oriented... drop the BAB grab some more Caster levels... maybe a 7/3 split). Some of these things just work better as a PrC.
2. Specialisation. Order of the Bow Initiate, Blademaster (from 3.0) Cavalier, Dervish, et al. Sometimes the base classes don't do quite enough to make a specialist feel right, these prestige classes can fix that while costing the character the right amount of general skill (after all a master archer should be able precisely line up a shot from farther away than a scant 30 feet).
3. Oddities. Exemplar, Thief acrobat, Harrower, (should have been but end up too powerful comparatively) Archmage. These don't really power up a character in general, but do offer a different means of doing what he was going to do anyways. Yes some of this is fluff... but I thought fluff was what you were all about? Why not make the mechanics follow it then?
4. Campaign specific. Some PrC should cover things that a campaign archtype can do that isn't normally allowed by the base classes.
I like the PrCs which make characters do really new things, like the Dervish, Thief Acrobat, Fatespinner or Duelist. Especially the Dervish, with his "moving full-attacks" was something excellently new.
Combination PrCs, which let characters be almost perfect Fighter/Mages, not so much. In 3.5 it was possible to get a seriously broken Fighter / Mage by combining Eldritch Knight with Abjurant Champion and sprinkling in Wizard, Fighter and Duskblade levels. I hope the people at Paizo avoid saturating the game with too many PrCs.
BTW, the Harrower really needs an update for when the Pathfinder RPG comes out. In its current state it is inferior to the base Sorcerer. Which would be a shame for a class with such good flavour.
I have a few gripes with PrCs and multiclassing in general, but I have found a couple of house rules help.
First, I instituted a rule much akin to Dragonsage's. I allow my players two prestige classes only one of which can be a "full progression" 10 level PrC. I have one player who would constantly dip into Prestige Classes to get the one or two abilities from the first or second level, and it really became game breaking by the higher levels. While I don't really limit which PrCs are available, I do request DM approval before characters take them. So far these rules have kept the group happy and make prestige classes something a bit more special.
My other major beef with multiclassing is the rise of Uber-Saves - let me explain. First thing to note, my group uses the Fractional Bonuses sidebar from Unearthed Arcana (I highly recommend it - overall it works great). Since every class has at least one Good save progression, my problem child exploited that fact by judiciously jumping from class to class strategically picking classes that increased a different Saves by 2-1/2 each time. By the upper levels of the campaign I don't think he had a single save modifier below 17 and it may have been more like 20. His reflex was through the roof (like a +27 at 18th level).
This was a fairly easy fix - basically I ruled that you get the full 2-1/2 only the first time you take a class with that particular Good save. After that, you only get the additional 1/2 that the Good progression gives you. My problem child pouted, but he got over it. Now I feel much better about the way that particular mechanic works.
Another problem with PrC from my experience is anything with an average BAB is going to lose a point by level 20. The save throws are worth noting, however if Pathfinder uses the same means that the beta did that cleans itself.
The Abjurant Champion was... abberant. If a DM will let me take it I will after all full BAB a d10 HD, full spell progression, and special abilities? Someone wasn't thinking to well.
I would never say all PrC are created equal, or that just anything should be allowed at the table (but I do as turnabout is fair play and the players are warned of such) but generally they are alright in my book (even multiple of them if it fits the concept).
I have been here on the board for a while and I see a lot of distain for Prestige Classes and I am really wondering why?
You're pointing in the right direction with your reference to WotC's 3.5 marketing strategy. A lot of it is a backlash because of the way the supplements were churned out, each with more (and more powerful) prestige classes. Basically, they rapidly got to the point where the "optional" prestige classes (and base classes, for that matter) were blatantly superior to the "core" classes (or even those in earlier supplements). Another reason for the reaction is the explosion of prestige classes for (seemingly) every minor variation of a character concept (and, in many cases, multiple prestige classes filling the same niche) cheapened the whole concept of a prestige class. The apparent lack of editorial oversight on how each supplement interacted with others also led to some pretty abusive exploits and "dipping."
I think Paizo has the right attitude toward prestige classes: 1) they should be significant either in terms of rules (i.e., arcane trickster, eldritch knight, mystic theurge) or setting (i.e., arcane archer, assassin, Pathfinder chronicler, etc.) and 2) there should be both a reason to take the prestige class and a reason NOT to take it (i.e., the prestige class shouldn't be significantly "better" than a base class).
I, personally, don't have too many problems with prestige classes. Then again, I don't believe in the mindset of "if it's published, then it exists in the setting." When I DM 3.x, I will either provide a list of allowable prestige classes as part of the setting overview and character creation guidelines or simply reserve the right to disallow any race, feat, spell, or base/prestige class that IMO doesn't fit in the setting or is overpowered.
Now, there are some rather abusive PrC's out there (Frenzied Berserker, Thrallherd, Contemplative are first on my mind) that require finesse to pull off without breaking the game
-t
Apologize for the minor thread jack, but I have a Contemplative Cleric. I did it for flavor reasons only, and honestly, I thought it nerfed the normal cleric progression. Maybe I'm a bad character optimizer, but, what's broken about this PrC?
More on topic: the idea of them was initially good, but they quickly became a means to get "better" characters. Also, too many of them left me w/ information overload. I use them rarely, and only for flavor purposes.
Now, there are some rather abusive PrC's out there (Frenzied Berserker, Thrallherd, Contemplative are first on my mind) that require finesse to pull off without breaking the game
-tApologize for the minor thread jack, but I have a Contemplative Cleric. I did it for flavor reasons only, and honestly, I thought it nerfed the normal cleric progression. Maybe I'm a bad character optimizer, but, what's broken about this PrC?
More on topic: the idea of them was initially good, but they quickly became a means to get "better" characters. Also, too many of them left me w/ information overload. I use them rarely, and only for flavor purposes.
It's usually dipped and with righteous might losing BAB doesn't really matter for a cleric. It's easy to get into and gives a domain real quick as well as several nice "perk" powers.
*************************************
I was rather disappointed with the pathfinder chronicler. I mean yes a Prestige class doesn't have to be all powerful or anything but the chronicler was a significant step backwards in power for any class, and doesn't offer abilities that are worth a squat, especially as limited use as those abilities are.
The low Templar is worth time, the Harrower looks nice, the Red Mantis Assassin is nice, and the Shodden lands pirate works well in its niche, but that Chronicler had me asking "why".
Prestige classes were liked in part because soem of the base calsses sucked. If you were a wizard you wanted to prestige otu as soon as you could. In the comparison between archmage (or loremaster) and wizard it was not that the archmage was so great, just that the wizard was so bad.
Pathfinder has done a lot to boost the CORE classes which will probably cause less use of Prestige classes (especially with favored class bonus).
Now out of curiosity Dragonsage47, if a player took a prestige class to level 10 would you then consider allowing him to take another prestige class? (assumign it fit the character and he was able to apply with the orgnaization to join it). For example, an elven fighter 1 mage 5 becomes and eldritch knight and follows that path for 10 levels to finish it. He is 16th level, would you allow him to continue his training by applying to the rarer order of Abjurant champions or would you expect him to go back and pick up either 4 more levels of mage or warrior?
Also did you consider Racial paragon classes in Unearthed Arcana to be prestige classes since they can be aquired at level 1.
Well as far as racial paragons...we treated them like 3 level prestige classes...for convenience mostly... as to allowing a a second prestige class after a player completed a 10 level prestige...perhaps...if it fit the campaign...didn't impugn any organization that might have sponsered the previous class, and fit the character concept...well then like any GOOD idea...I would give it full consideration
|
|
I've always liked prestige classes, but I think that the game created problems with balance. There are a lot of prestige classes that I could never imagine taking, but there are others that would give outstanding abilities in just one or two levels. If prestige classes didn't offer their most powerful class abilities until you were nearing the end of their progression, there would be more incentive to stick with the class.
I also think that the way saving throw bonuses stack between levels has encouraged multi-classing and prestige classes (and level dipping). If prestige classes only offered a +1 (instead of a +2) bonus for good saving throws at 1st level, or if there were some sort of penalty to saving throw progression for multi-classing and prestige classing, we might see somewhat less abuse of prestige classes.
Example:
Dwarven Fighter 20 [+12 Fort, +6 Ref, +6 Will]
Dwarven Fighter 2 / Ranger 3 / Exotic Weapon Master 1 / Pious Templar 4 / Deepwarden 10 [ +19 Fort, +7 Ref, +12 Will]
And the more classes you tack on, the greater the differences in saving throw bonuses.
|
|
The other problem with prestige classes is that very few of them are tied to a specific organization. I think the game would be improved with fewer generic prestige classes.
Even the small number of prestige classes presented in the DMG could be made unnecessary simply by allowing some variation in class abilites in the base classes. Add a few new choices to the list of Rogue talents (perhaps with some minimum level requirements), and you might do away with the necessity of the Assassin prestige class (you'd be a specialized Rogue instead).
If other classes besides the Rogue got talents to choose from (perhaps in place of the occasional class ability), a bunch of other prestige classes could go away. If you're a 20th level Fighter, that's pretty damned prestigious. What if the Fighter got a few Fighter talents in place of a couple of bonus feats? What if you could design a Duelist character, without the need for the prestige class?
One thing I really liked about the D20 Modern and Star Wars Saga Edition games were the Talent Trees that allowed you to (in essence) customize your class abilities. Both games still had prestige classes, but had no need of hundreds of them.