stuff
Spycraft? Didn't it have a sniper class that gave crazy assassin abilities?
Blood mage? That's a classic dark fantasy trope.
I understand the complaint that there's no reason not to multiclass if you can keep your full casting; but you've already pointed out that it's largely taken care of in PF.
If there's too many prestige classes, why do I sometimes struggle to make a character into exactly what I want it to be? Seems to me there need to be a couple more prestige classes...
|
My current game I am running the players were quickly pointing out all kinds of PrCs they wanted to dip into.
I didn't place any limits, but did say that to gain a PrC would require a MAJOR roleplaying commitment and could not just be taken anytime.
Essentially, I will control when and what PrCs they are able to join. I have no problem letting them join, but I won't let them dip in and out. There will be roleplaying repercussions to dipping.
The thing is I allow a total character rebuild once at level 10. If a player wishes it, he will undergo a MAJOR ritual. This requires a major roleplaying session and crunch changes.
I've played characters to high levels and found that at higher levels the role that they were created and designed for at lower levels no longer works at higher levels. Thus the character is not fun to play anymore. This allows the player to have the confidence to play comfortable and not feel that early choices will later create an unsatisfying character to play.
This major change does not rewrite the past. Everything has existed as played. Instead the magic of the ritual makes the changes happen now, not in the past. So an elven wizard might walk out of the ritual altered to a dwarven fighter! He hasn't always been a dwarven fighter. So there is roleplaying aspects as well. When he comes to a dwarven stronghold and is asked his clan, he will have some explaining to do.
|
|
post disappeared but this time I copied it first!
My current game I am running the players were quickly pointing out all kinds of PrCs they wanted to dip into.
I didn't place any limits, but did say that to gain a PrC would require a MAJOR roleplaying commitment and could not just be taken anytime.
Essentially, I will control when and what PrCs they are able to join. I have no problem letting them join, but I won't let them dip in and out. There will be roleplaying repercussions to dipping.
The thing is I allow a total character rebuild once at level 10. If a player wishes it, he will undergo a MAJOR ritual. This requires a major roleplaying session and crunch changes.
I've played characters to high levels and found that at higher levels the role that they were created and designed for at lower levels no longer works at higher levels. Thus the character is not fun to play anymore. This allows the player to have the confidence to play comfortable and not feel that early choices will later create an unsatisfying character to play.
This major change does not rewrite the past. Everything has existed as played. Instead the magic of the ritual makes the changes happen now, not in the past. So an elven wizard might walk out of the ritual altered to a dwarven fighter! He hasn't always been a dwarven fighter. So there is roleplaying aspects as well. When he comes to a dwarven stronghold and is asked his clan, he will have some explaining to do.
I personally played a Dragonlance minotaur that by the end of the campaign was...
Rogue (thug variant) 4/Barbarian 1/Fist of the Forest 1/Frostrager 2/Frenzied Berzerker 3/Bear Warrior (Feral Minotaur Warrior) 5/Warshaper 2
So that's... 2 core classes and 5 prestige. The character was built thematically, although the reasons behind class selection are too much to go into here. He was great fun to role play, and was perfectly capable of handling himself through an entire adventuring day.
When I think of what great fun he was, my heart weeps at the thought of not having been able to play him. This is why I argue against restrictive house rules, because there are hidden gems you might be missing out on.
Similarly, I played a dragonlance character who was a paladin/cleric (kiri-jolith)/righteous cohort of kiri-jolith/dragon rider/ and one of the knight prestige classes.
He was a really fun character who spent most of the campaign making the rest of the party kick ass, especially a minotaur fighter who was also in the party. It was about 15th level before he even started drawing a weapon instead of shield bashing occasionally, and that was because the party acquired a dragonlance that no one else wanted to use.
Our Houserule about prestige classes came about bc of a pair of players who Liked to min/max and dip...One of these guys actually showed up to a game as Ftr/Barb/Cleric/Pious Templar/Champion of Torm 2/1/1/2... His whole Build was just absurd by our groups standards... and it was very unbalancing.... In his first fight, he raged, used all his smites and his spells...(which were all personal buffs btw) He literally was devastating for about 4 rounds and poof...nothing after that...) the rest of the group just stared at him....then proceded to have to cover his tail for the rest of the session... So...after a great deal of discussion we came up with our Houserules for prestige classes...
This is not a problem with prestige classes, or even dipping. This is a problem with a particular player and play style.
The issue is that the player went "nova" in the first fight and used up all of his resources at once. Note that this is not a problem limited to min/max dippers; the same sort of players will run wizards who blast away with their most powerful spells and then complain that they have "nothing to do" after the first one or two fights.
IMO, a better solution would have been to discuss resource management vs. the "15 min adventuring day" mindset.
I have had players sit down at the table with their characters written out (including HP) up to level 20. The character would have 2-3 core classes and often 2 or more PrCs. There would be no character history or concept other than "I wanna be a master-kick-ass-bowman," or "I want to be the ultimate shapeshifting druid."
So far, no one has managed to stick with the plan as they find that their one trick ponies don't survive very long or that they contribute very little to the party except in specific circumstances.
You're really talking about two different issues: planning a character's development out in advance (which is not necessarily a problem) and creating an overly specialized "one trick pony" (which is a problem even when using a single base class). For example, if I want to play a 3.5 combat arcanist, why shouldn't I plan my advancement as a wizard 6/fighter 1/spellsword 1/eldritch knight 7/archmage 5? Or what if I want to play a cleric (magic as one domain) 3/conjurer 3/mystic theurge 10/thaumaturgist 4? Or a barbarian (bear totem) 6/fighter 2/bear warrior 7/warshaper 5 fighting Bear Fang style? Conversely, the whip-wielding bard with maxed out Diplomacy, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, and a crappy spell selection can be as much of a headache as any min/maxed multi-"dipping" build.
answered my questionWell, sure, he sounds like he had a silly build. But what did he actually do that ruined things for everyone else? 4 rounds of being great, x rounds of sucking wind? Isn't that more a problem for him?
Also, if he was so capable, why wouldn't the rest of the party just leave him to handle himself? Why wouldn't the critters all jump on him?
He'd need barbarian regardless if he was going to get fast movement, and I don't believe there's any way to mix barb and pally. And he had a point... until the pathfinder preview, paladins were lamer than a centipede with one leg. ;)
[EDIT]
I wouldn't say you've been flamed exactly, just subject to criticism that is equally harsh as your house rules. I actually edited a couple of my posts down quite a bit to avoid implications of "fightiness".
Maybe I'll see the light and start limiting players to warrior, expert and adept classes; until they can prove they deserve to be allowed a base class. I'm thinking 10 levels and then they can take fighter, wizard or cleric; but only if it fits the theme of the campaign.
Shadow hit it on the HEAD...its just a build...he had no background, only mechanical reasons...which DOESN"T enhance the story, world or play...he might as well have built a robot with one function...sorry but that doesn't fit our GROUPS style of play...around here we call it Frankensteining your character... just enough of this and that to make your character a bada$$... I encourage my character to build a story, not a machine and I'ver yet to see one of these dippers in our game to come up with a coherent story to explain their dips...but we also don't allow barbarians in our game without it being your first class...
To us...barbarian is more a cultural thing than a class thing... I'm certain many of you would B%^$& about that as well.... and before you geek and start whining...we have made an excetion for a character who spent several game months living with a group of barbariansSome folks like min/maxers...and dippers....cool for you...Allow it in your games...we just like character builds that lean to increasing our depth of story... and enrich the plot through role-play...MOST dippers tend to be poor RPers...not all but in my experience that is the case....I'm certain that will annoy some of you as well...but thats life as well...good thing you all have your own groups to play with....
Our Houserule about prestige classes came about bc of a pair of players who Liked to min/max and dip...One of these guys actually showed up to a game as Ftr/Barb/Cleric/Pious Templar/Champion of Torm 2/1/1/2... His whole Build was just absurd by our groups standards... and it was very unbalancing.... In his first fight, he raged, used all his smites and his spells...(which were all personal buffs btw) He literally was devastating for about 4 rounds and poof...nothing after that...) the rest of the group just stared at him....then proceded to have to cover his tail for the rest of the session... So...after a great deal of discussion we came up with our Houserules for prestige classes...This is not a problem with prestige classes, or even dipping. This is a problem with a particular player and play style.
The issue is that the player went "nova" in the first fight and used up all of his resources at once. Note that this is not a problem limited to min/max dippers; the same sort of players will run wizards who blast away with their most powerful spells and then complain that they have "nothing to do" after the first one or two fights.
IMO, a better solution would have been to discuss resource management
vs. the "15 min adventuring day" mindset.
Actually dipping is symptomatic of that type of mindset...and that was ONE example....I can quote more over the years but I really don't feel the need...Dippers and min/maxers tend to go NOVA as you put it on a regular basis...the Houserules we use are in place to keep these people OUT... When we try to bring someone into a group we list our Houserules...dippers, and min maxers always say were too constrained for them...they offer up all the arguments we've heard here...which is fine...then we explain how the rules WORK for the group and POOF...they are gone....which is FINE by us....in the 4 years since we started using these rules...We've added three new players...who love it and rejected over a dozen... now our group run smoothly everyone is happy and we have no one going NOVA...
the Houserules we use are in place to keep these people OUT
Not much more to say than that, is there? No great loss when people with this mindset band together.
|
the Houserules we use are in place to keep these people OUTNot much more to say than that, is there? No great loss when people with this mindset band together.
I've had problems in my group with people who over role-play, conversely. They will go out of their way to make their character "ebb-and-flow", to the point where their abilities no long make them function within a party. It makes the game even less fun because somebody isn't pulling their weight.
Conversely, I want my player's to roleplay. I might put a similar rule to Dragonsage's but, that isn't to keep the player out. Its to keep the "My character is better than yours" crowd from trying to dominate the game. I would wager you've probably come across a munchking-player in the past whose made trouble for you as the GM, I would think most GM's had. Some of us just come across it far more than others and we need a means of preventing it from spiraling out of control.
However, i'm of the school that says "If you can come up with a good story for why, I'll let you do anything you want". Unless its completely outlandish (and i've seen some strange things cross my path such as a gnome wizards orbiting satelite that created a mirror of opposition counterpart of the world and then burned the old one to a cinder) I typically allow it to transpire. I like being impressed as the GM, and a good story is the best way to do it. I really don't like having a player sit at the table with just one class for his character and not have somekind of story or drive to motivate him.
perfectly reasonable things
Yup.
the Houserules we use are in place to keep these people OUTNot much more to say than that, is there? No great loss when people with this mindset band together.
Agreed.
<shrug>
I usually take the approach of trying to teach the individual the drawbacks of the "nova" mindset first. Basically, if you burn all your resources in the first encounter, then it sucks to be you after that when the reinforcements show up (and then the BBEG after that). Too bad you used up all your mojo on the minions...
It's important to remember that the vast majority of PrC's out there are in option books. And that's what they are... OPTIONS.
Options are the very best thing about 3.5. With skill points and feats and substitution levels and prestige classes you have a much easier time creating a character that fits your character concept. Not to mention, a way to make sure that your character is different from every other character of the same class.
I agree that most problems stem, not from prestige classes themselves, but from immature players that abuse them. Don't allow your players to use them unless you are confident in their ability to handle them and roleplay their flavor.
As for James Jacob's suggestion that there are too mant PrCs out there, for once I must disagree. Just because they're in print doesn't mean you have to use them. They're options. Take what you like and leave the rest. But everyone's likes and dislikes are different. So many different ones are almost required.
So how do you add one into your game that has never been there before? I recommend the "poof" method. When a player wants to make an abjurant champion when for 10 levels there has never been any mention of them, just say "poof" and assume they HAVE always been there.
Of course the other option is to create a rare and almost hidden order or cult that you has to prove yourself to. But this can be time consuming for the DM and can subtract from the other player's good time. But it has great roleplaying opportunities and can be alot of fun.
Ultimately you have to decide what's best for your game. (There's that option thing again.)
All in all, I definately think that most people out there like or love PrC's and use them to one degree or another. I haven't read many posts on here from PrC haters.
You just have to be a vigilant DM. They're open to abuse.
|
|
Yo again.
After reading through the last page of posts I wanted to pop back on and add something more than just "Dur, I like Duelist" ^_^
As I've been reading throughout, I've seen some people entirely against level dipping because the guys are just min/maxing and thus that had to stop.
I can understand this to a certain extent. After all, if they don't have a good story in my own games, then it doesn't happen. Luckily I play with mature and adult players who are more interested in everyone having a good time then trying to break a game or build a character based on "BAZILLION FEATS AND NUCLEAR POWERS!"
However I did want to say prestige classes, core classes, and all the like all seem the exact same as class dipping except that the dippers usually suck because they think "hey this looks cool" but when you actually play it, they've turned into a liability rather than helpful.
The reason I say all prestige and core classes are the same as level dipping is that as you level you're getting new abilities as you go. I don't really see how this is much different then level dipping into other classes/prestige classes. You level up, you get a new ability, you're done.
Maybe ONE class or ONE prestige class wasn't what they were looking for but YOUR one class or prestige class was. I guess maybe I'm lucky and I've never had to experience the frustration some of you talk about so I really can't say I could even begin to understand how it is a problem. But with out group, 99 times out of 100 once they tell me what they're doing, I'm ok with it. I trust the players to play the game and they trust me to show them a good time as their DM (even if I don't WANT to DM >_> ).
So I guess to people like Dragonsage, I'm sorry you've had bad experiences. But you are right, you have to do what you have to do for the good of the group. If you have to put down those kinds of restrictions, then it's what you have to do. Don't envy the situation that put you there though.
... oh and as a side note, even for a min/maxer, the example you gave of the ftr/barb/cler/templar/champion thingy ... that's just a bad build even FOR trying to get the best bang for your buck. Natural selection ... that guy's character was dead sooner or later anyway >_>
|
My take on the problem:
I have two power gamers in my group. They optimize to extreme, spend several hours on Wotc CO boards and every now and then they ask me "can I take XXX (feat/spell/prc/item)" and my answer is "OK, show me which broken combo that thing is part of, this will save me searching for it on the boards".
So, if I were to introduce PrCs that would only result in my having to answer said question 5 times a week in regard to PrCs, and having sleepless nights because there might be some munchkin combo that I missed.
What I could do is take a bunch of "flavour, non-broken" PrCs such as ones from PFCS, and allow only those - but that means I will have "why we can't take FUN PrCs and just these silly ones ?" talk.
That's what you get when your best gaming buddies are IT PhDs who are pretty new to RPGs and still think that they can "win" this game. :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Put me in the 'complete the class' catagory. At the same time I think a lot of the prestige classes that have been published are broken.
Scarred Lands at least admitted that their Prestige classes are broken. The spell casting prestige classes suffer the worst from this. I'll take some of my favourites
Archmage: You burn one 'useless' feat (SF Spellcraft) to get massive cosmic powers. You lose 1 point of BAB to gain 5 special abilities. Why would you not take the class? Oh no, you lose out on familiar advancement! At least you're losing spells known with the Hierophant.
Thaumaturge one can argue is ever worse.
Loremaster: If you're a Human Wizard, again, why not take it? You already have one of the required feats, (scribe scroll) sure you're investing 3/4 of your feats by 5th level, but it's not like those feats are useless. Heck, you get more skill points and don't lose a caster level. Again, oh no, you lose two bonus feats and your familiar bonus. Wizard 7/Loremaster 8/Archmage 5 is quite survivable. Your saves are +5/+5/+15 (+7/+7/+15 with the Loremaster secrets) and your BAB is +9.
Ruathar: The entry requirements are RP based, so if your GM allows you to meet them, go ahead. Every class gains something, ironically the ranger actually loses the most (HD and SP).
Abjurant Champion: Oh don't get me started on the Abjurant Cheesewhore. For two feats (one if you're an elf/planetouched/battlesorcerer) you get 5 levels of full BAB, good fort and will saves, no caster level loss and quickened abjurations up to 3rd level? Not to mention that quickened shield you toss out at the drop of a hat is a <i>+9<i> shield bonus? And extended?
Those are off the SRD/Top of my head.
PFRPG has made these choices a bit more difficult since you have actual class abilities to lose to gain the goodies of the prestige classes.
As a player, I like PRCS because they often let me more fully realize my character concept than I could with base classes. As a DM, I see them as useful tools to create interested organizations or individuals.
That said, here is where I draw my lines and put my limits.
PRCS are exceptions. They are what happens when someone does something "against the flow". Granted, 3.5 wasn't very friendly for this mindset, but using Pathfinder base classes, it works great. Effectively, base classes are 1-20 for a reason. They are the overall best at what they do on a general level. PRCs exist for people who want to do something different, or do something in specific better.
PRCs need more attention paid to what "kind" of PRC it is. Some types should be easier to come by than others, although its all up to the DM.
Transformational: Dragon Disciple, Acolyte of the Skin, Renegade Mastermaker. Usually requires finding hidden lore, making contact with strange creatures, or extreme self-introspection.
Specialist: Radiant Servant of Pelor, Leviathan Hunter, Archmage. Often requires membership in an organization, or apprenticeship.
Unique Skill: Assasin, Shadowsmith. Apprenticeship is very appropriate, self-study only if the character has a good reason to learn it "naturally".
Organization: Shadowbane Inquisitor, Nightsong Enforcer, Platinum Knight. Membership in the related club is mandatory.
Currently, in my Age of Worms game, here is whats happening PRC wise.
The Drow Psion didn't like the limited number of powers known, so multiclassed to Wizard, then went into Cerebromancer, so that neither of his studies would suffer. Recent events have given him a keen interest in the Fleshwarper PRC, which he is now studying (taking ranks of Heal) to get into.
The Two-Headed Half-Orc Barbarian has started taking Beast Heart Adept levels, because he gets along with monsters exceptionally well.
The Dragonborn Paladin (first of his kind in my campaign world) has started taking Platinum Knight levels, but may switch to taking Legacy Champion levels after finally awakening the Legacy Powers of the Legacy Holy Avenger given to him by his father (a warlock PC from our previous Shackled City Game)
The Kobold Rogue/Swordsage has been exploring his bizzare wind and electricity powers (His Wind Duke heritage awakened when he put on the circlet of Zosiel). His Desert Wind manuvers all do lightning damage instead of fire. No hard plans to PRC, but is often tempted by his kobold heritage to go into Combat Trapsmith.
Overall, no problems in PRCs for me. My players acknowledge them for what I see them as, and play by that mindset. Granted, if they say, "I want my PC to go into this class!" and I don't think it would be problematic, I will try to arrange for their PC to get an opportunity to do so. Give and take.
Archmage: You burn one 'useless' feat (SF Spellcraft) to get massive cosmic powers. You lose 1 point of BAB to gain 5 special abilities. Why would you not take the class? Oh no, you lose out on familiar advancement! At least you're losing spells known with the Hierophant.
The rest of the requirements in 3.5 can be difficult for some characters, depending on what else you want to do. The loremaster/archmage is a case in point: there is no overlap in the feat requirements, so that's 3 metamagic/item creation feats (granted, a wizard automatically gets Scribe Scroll), 2 Skill Focus feats, and 2 Spell Focus feats just in meeting PrR prerequisites (out of 7 possible by 20th level, +1 if human, +1 if a wizard 7 before switching to loremaster, +1 if Applicable Knowledge is taken as one of the loremaster Secrets). That's some pretty restrictive planning just to be able to qualify for both PrCs; you also need to fit in things like Greater Spell Focus, Improved Initiative, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Spell Penetration, etc.
I personally find that ~90% of prestige classes would have been much better handled as feat chains, but there you have it.
|
|
I personally find that ~90% of prestige classes would have been much better handled as feat chains, but there you have it.
[threadjack/completely off topic/too lazy to pick up the phone two feet from me]Jess Door came by and played with us yesterday. Hope she had fun, as she was a great player and a joy to have in the group![/threadjack/completely off topic/too lazy to pick up the phone two feet from me]
I personally find that ~90% of prestige classes would have been much better handled as feat chains, but there you have it.
I would say that 90% of prestige classes would be better handled by swapping out an ability of some kind, at any rate (whether that's a bunch of feats, or a class feature, or some levels of spellcasting, etc.).
The annoying part about feat chains is that a non-human, non-fighter PC just doesn't get that many feats before level 12, say (Pathfinder notwithstanding).
[threadjack/completely off topic/too lazy to pick up the phone two feet from me]Jess Door came by and played with us yesterday. Hope she had fun, as she was a great player and a joy to have in the group![/threadjack/completely off topic/too lazy to pick up the phone two feet from me]
|
|
[threadjack/completely off topic/too lazy to pick up the phone two feet from me]Jess Door came by and played with us yesterday. Hope she had fun, as she was a great player and a joy to have in the group![/threadjack/completely off topic/too lazy to pick up the phone two feet from me]** spoiler omitted **
Personally I don't allow all PrC in my game; it needs to fit the world. More then a few are classes that rely on the character joining an order or organization, and if I don't have that order or organization well what can I do. It doesn't make sense to allow a person to take a level in Knight Protector Prestige class if no such organization or close facsimile exists. Sure in the current RoTRL AP I am running I am allowing it, only you are a member of the Hellknights because that is the organization that to me most closely resembles the Knight Protectors of the Greyhawk world. So it has to fit the world, that's really my only big restriction, that and well I need to read it carefully, some of them are pretty unbalanced.
Well to me the issue seems he did not have a reason in charter to take any of it. He was nothing but a build, there was nothing prestigious about it. If he had come to my table with that I would have needed a lot of resens in charter why. and a good change I would have told him no anyhow as well he just dipped for powers and nothing moreanswered my questionWell, sure, he sounds like he had a silly build. But what did he actually do that ruined things for everyone else? 4 rounds of being great, x rounds of sucking wind? Isn't that more a problem for him?
Also, if he was so capable, why wouldn't the rest of the party just leave him to handle himself? Why wouldn't the critters all jump on him?
He'd need barbarian regardless if he was going to get fast movement, and I don't believe there's any way to mix barb and pally. And he had a point... until the pathfinder preview, paladins were lamer than a centipede with one leg. ;)
Seeker, overall I'd agree with you (among others in this thread). There should be reasons beyond gaining specific abilities to take a prestige class and the interest / drive to get into one should indicate the pc is there for more than just a "dip". Other people see it as a matter of mechanics / build, with the player designing the character he wants. To each, thier own. I guess. I limit the classes (prestige and core) to those that fit my campaign to begin with. For prestige classes which do exist, it takes role playing and effort (built around any pre-requisites as well) to get into one. Of course, you need the opportunity as well. If you can't locate a willing mentor / school / situation to justify the class it's a no go. This tends to cut out the abuse of prestige classes with characters dipping through chains of them (and core classes) designed to give specific effects (although this doesn't rule out a characters life / experience pushing him through several). I've shyed away from mechanical limits (although they are easier to use) in favor of social / cultural / role playing limits.
Seeker, overall I'd agree with you (among others in this thread). There should be reasons beyond gaining specific abilities to take a prestige class and the interest / drive to get into one should indicate the pc is there for more than just a "dip".
I just would like to repeat my opinion on the subject: if a player wants to "dip" into a prestige class, then 9 times out of 10 that's a failure on the part of the prestige class, not a failure on the part of the player.
Ideally, every class (base, prestige, whatever) should have a compelling reason to take each and every level of it.
|
The thing is I allow a total character rebuild once at level 10. If a player wishes it, he will undergo a MAJOR ritual. This requires a major roleplaying session and crunch changes.
I've played characters to high levels and found that at higher levels the role that they were created and designed for at lower levels no longer works at higher levels. Thus the character is not fun to play anymore. This allows the player to have the confidence to play comfortable and not feel that early choices will later create an unsatisfying character to play.
This major change does not rewrite the past. Everything has existed as played. Instead the magic of the ritual makes the changes happen now, not in the past. So an elven wizard might walk out of the ritual altered to a dwarven fighter! He hasn't always been a dwarven fighter. So there is roleplaying aspects as well. When he comes to a dwarven stronghold and is asked his clan, he will have some explaining to do.
Is this dissatisfaction due to feats and spell choices not scaling?
If so, that may change, and they may in future feel they are getting the bang for their buck with those early choices.I do like the option of redesigning a PC, though.
Sometimes a PC was made using material on hand at the time, and a later supplement comes out, which fits the concept far better.
Not neccesarily more powerful, but with less egregious multiclassing and feat-juggling.
There are ways to justify a change, in the 'cleansing fires of the Phoenix Throne', or being buried and reborn in 'the elemental clay of the Dwarves Firsthome', or as 'an alchemical experiment in The Philosopher's Crucible'. I don't know if I'd want an elf wizard to walk out as a dwarf fighter though! I'd expect the player to at least attempt to recreate the similar concept as before.
I personally find that ~90% of prestige classes would have been much better handled as feat chains, but there you have it.
Slightly on/off topic:
I have had very few requests for PrCs since I added feats that allow things like:
Combining spells with melee attacks, cast spells in armour, learn altered versions of spells (with different elemental descriptors), increase effective range of sneak attacks, and different feats to alter your fighting style (one handed, two handed, two weapon and weapon shield fighting styles)
I also made the rogue trapfinding ability a feat that anyone can take but rogues gain for free.
I did someother special feats as well and it really seems to open up altering the class to fit the character instead of needing more classes.
Before 3.0 everyone complained about DND that they wanted more Customization like in White Wolf Games Vampire and its ilk. Now when they made the new edition they gave us all kinds of customization. Now we complain that there is to much
I think it would be alot different if they would of called them Secondary classes instead of prestige classes like one of the previous posters had talked about
Seeker, overall I'd agree with you (among others in this thread). There should be reasons beyond gaining specific abilities to take a prestige class and the interest / drive to get into one should indicate the pc is there for more than just a "dip". Other people see it as a matter of mechanics / build, with the player designing the character he wants. To each, thier own. I guess. I limit the classes (prestige and core) to those that fit my campaign to begin with. For prestige classes which do exist, it takes role playing and effort (built around any pre-requisites as well) to get into one. Of course, you need the opportunity as well. If you can't locate a willing mentor / school / situation to justify the class it's a no go. This tends to cut out the abuse of prestige classes with characters dipping through chains of them (and core classes) designed to give specific effects (although this doesn't rule out a characters life / experience pushing him through several). I've shyed away...Well to me the issue seems he did not have a reason in charter to take any of it. He was nothing but a build, there was nothing prestigious about it. If he had come to my table with that I would have needed a lot of resens in charter why. and a good change I would have told him no anyhow as well he just dipped for powers and nothing moreanswered my questionWell, sure, he sounds like he had a silly build. But what did he actually do that ruined things for everyone else? 4 rounds of being great, x rounds of sucking wind? Isn't that more a problem for him?
Also, if he was so capable, why wouldn't the rest of the party just leave him to handle himself? Why wouldn't the critters all jump on him?
He'd need barbarian regardless if he was going to get fast movement, and I don't believe there's any way to mix barb and pally. And he had a point... until the pathfinder preview, paladins were lamer than a centipede with one leg. ;)
For sure...which is why I am picky about what PRc'S/How Many I allow.... as stated earleir...repeatedly I expect a GOOD reason to allow any of them in my game...mechanics aren't good enough...i want the situation RPed... not just added on bc someone wants its ability...
Also like Archlich...i've toyed with the idea of adding feats to fill in some of the gaps but I have concerns there with balance...and in 3.x I had concern with cross class skills causing issues there as well...like with trapfinding and search... of course the feat Able Learner helped there if you were a human or doppleganger...
Also I discern that most of the folks who protest strict rules on PrC's....are the dippers/tweakers and min/maxers we are trying to avoid...Thus they feel personal engaged by said discussion
Before 3.0 everyone complained about DND that they wanted more Customization like in White Wolf Games Vampire and its ilk. Now when they made the new edition they gave us all kinds of customization. Now we complain that there is to much
I think it would be alot different if they would of called them Secondary classes instead of prestige classes like one of the previous posters had talked about
The base classes offer a lot of customization with free multiclassing, skills, and feats. And I don't think anyone complains about that.
Also I discern that most of the folks who protest strict rules on PrC's....are the dippers/tweakers and min/maxers we are trying to avoid...Thus they feel personal engaged by said discussion
I like unlimited multiclassing for everyone; that's one of the things I love about 3E vs. AD&D. So if multiclassing is causing problems because of dipping and abuse, I'm much more in favour of fixing (prestige) classes so they don't encourage that behaviour instead of whipping out the ban-hammer.
If that means turning some prestige classes into feats (e.g. the Archmage's class features could easily be made into feats) or retooling some prestige classes (e.g. the Shadowdancer could easily be made into a 3-level PrC with Hide in Plain Sight at level 3), so be it.
are the dippers/tweakers and min/maxers we are trying to avoid
That's just another part of the poor attitude I mentioned before and I deliberately didn't say anything about it because I was trying not to seem overly combative. Oh well.
You can make all the condescending remarks you want using rude and accusatory buzz words; but it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing to take options away from players just because their fun is less important to you than your sense of control. Moreover, I mentioned making a character with multiple level dips specifically to say that each one was built around a theme and predicated by role play. But I discern that this was ignored so that you could be snide.
Well that's fine, I don't have any goofy words like munchkin or dipper I can throw around at people who choose to limit options unnecessarily. I don't waste my time creating a lexicon to insult people with different preferences. So I guess I'll just settle for the default English terms that I can't write in my posts.
***.
I personally find that ~90% of prestige classes would have been much better handled as feat chains, but there you have it.
I don't care for this approach because I want to retain feats for customization.
Are there some PClasses that don't really have enough juice to merit being a class? Sure. But I'd put the number more around 5%.
Ability to go into a class for variation + custom select feats >> follow a given feat chain for an archetype you want to explore.
The addition of balanced feats as options for abilities alongside PClasses is even better yet.
are the dippers/tweakers and min/maxers we are trying to avoidThat's just another part of the poor attitude I mentioned before and I deliberately didn't say anything about it because I was trying not to seem overly combative. Oh well.
You can make all the condescending remarks you want using rude and accusatory buzz words; but it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing to take options away from players just because their fun is less important to you than your sense of control. Moreover, I mentioned making a character with multiple level dips specifically to say that each one was built around a theme and predicated by role play. But I discern that this was ignored so that you could be snide.
Well that's fine, I don't have any goofy words like munchkin or dipper I can throw around at people who choose to limit options unnecessarily. I don't waste my time creating a lexicon to insult people with different preferences. So I guess I'll just settle for the default English terms that I can't write in my posts.
***.
but it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing to take options away from players just because their fun is less important to you than your sense of control
Lol...Ironicly...I wasn't even running a Game when this dipping rule was created...lol...nor did I table the rule for the vote...funny how this has all become so PERSONAL for YOU...lol...before you cast dispersions...get your facts straight...and the rule was created so ONE players BS disn't ruin everyone elses fun... but then again...with such a self centered viewpoint I can only assume that wouldn't matter to you...As I stated repeatedly...4 DM's unanamously voted on these rules...and only one of our 6 players...between 2 groups had any serious objection to it... SO in a group with essentially 11 players 10 were happy and one wasn't as happy but was willing to concede. I'm sorry that your type of play doesn't savvy with everyones...and I'm sorry that the lexicon of derogatory terms doesn't support you...lol
As I've stated repeatedly... WE....my WHOLE GROUP.... are quite happy with our houserules... thus...your continued attempts to dance the line of insults bears no fruit here... WE are not gonna change the way WE play bc YOU don't like it...
I also stated...repeatedly...that IF someone has an RP reason for doing something...it will be considered.... but my group cosist of people who wanna spend time playing...not dealing with a rules lawyer or someone who tries to abuse the holes in the system...
Enjoy your style....We will enjoy ours...
Thinly veiled insults directed at someone you will never meet are childish, and don't do these boards any good whatsoever....can you not just accept that some people do not play the same way you do... does it bother you so much that we wouldn't let you play a dipped character...why...you aren't in our group, anywhere near us or even remotely affected by us...I see things on here about others playing styles that I disagree with all the time...but I don''t care...I only post about things that affect me...my group and our play... and make comments on threads that have something to do with our PLAY... you it seems feel the need to PROTEST others play style... what is YOUR problem?
largely gibberish
You're presenting a case for x gaming style while casting aspersions on people who do otherwise. That's not "live and let live" that's you saying that your method is superior and everyone who does different is inferior.
It's not personal for me, but it is annoying because you're coining terms so that you can create an "us vs. them" mentality. Heck, if it were personal I'd be much more concerned with your abuses of the English language than with your gaming style.
My problem? Two-fold. I think your style of play is elitist and drives people away, which is something that you've openly stated as your goal. Also, you have argued against my style of play; but when I argue against yours you play the wounded child. You've called not just me, but an entire subset of gamers names, and you once again play the innocent victim when I reply with a mild to moderate reprimand. My problem then, essentially, is that you can dish it out but not take it.
are the dippers/tweakers and min/maxers we are trying to avoidThat's just another part of the poor attitude I mentioned before and I deliberately didn't say anything about it because I was trying not to seem overly combative. Oh well.
You can make all the condescending remarks you want using rude and accusatory buzz words; but it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing to take options away from players just because their fun is less important to you than your sense of control. Moreover, I mentioned making a character with multiple level dips specifically to say that each one was built around a theme and predicated by role play. But I discern that this was ignored so that you could be snide.
Well that's fine, I don't have any goofy words like munchkin or dipper I can throw around at people who choose to limit options unnecessarily. I don't waste my time creating a lexicon to insult people with different preferences. So I guess I'll just settle for the default English terms that I can't write in my posts.
***.
The DM is and should be in control of his game. That's why you have one. Trying to run a campaign is like herding cats, not easy, but somebody has to do it. What has probably created more of a fuss about this topic is when people try to bring their style into a campaign that doesn't fit it. Whether it's someone who is into unlimited character options / builds trying to play in a campaign with limits or someone who is into "roleplaying / drama" (and not mechanics) getting in with a bunch who like to optimize. In short the problem is "misfits". Players who don't match the style of the game they are in. You can't change a game with established characteristics without interfering with everyone elses fun (and probably driving the Dm over the edge). So, whether you're into charop or drama you need to find a game that fits you, not change an existing game. I suspect you hear more about "dipping" than you do "drama queens" because there are more stray charops people... more campaigns center around the narrative as oppossed to the mechanics imo. There aren't too many extreme players of either style I think, mostly it's a spectrum of players with people fitting in at various points along the line -- which allows people to fit into most games. The ones you hear horror stories about are the extremes who don't fit into a specific campaign...
Kuma, you haven't "created a lexicon", but you drip scorn with every line of your superior attitude towards those who "limit options". That's no different than slinging names. I think role playing style can be discussed without names or attitude as long as everyone realizes that there are different styles and no one style is right for everyone. I suppose I'm guilty of the name / attitude thing as much as the next person -- because we all find it annoying to deal with misfit players -- but I try to keep it under control. Find your type of game (not always possible I know) and have fun -- that's the whole point of playing isn't it? And on these boards I think we can all (yes, everybody, not just Kuma) be civil about it.
*edit* Kuma, aplogies if it seems like I'm picking on you or your style, I'm not trying to. I just felt the need to respnd to the growing level of hostility in this thread and your post was the lucky one I replied to :)
The DM is and should be in control of his game. That's why you have one. Trying to run a campaign is like herding cats, not easy, but somebody has to do it. What has probably created more of a fuss about this topic is when people try to bring their style into a campaign that doesn't fit it. Whether it's someone who is into unlimited character options / builds trying to play in a campaign with limits or someone who is into "roleplaying / drama" (and not mechanics) getting in with a bunch who like to optimize. In short the problem is "misfits". Players who don't match the style of the game they are in. You can't change a game with established characteristics without interfering with everyone elses fun (and probably driving the Dm over the edge). So, whether you're into charop or drama you need to find a game that fits you, not change an existing game. I suspect you hear more about "dipping" than you do "drama queens" because...are the dippers/tweakers and min/maxers we are trying to avoidThat's just another part of the poor attitude I mentioned before and I deliberately didn't say anything about it because I was trying not to seem overly combative. Oh well.
You can make all the condescending remarks you want using rude and accusatory buzz words; but it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing to take options away from players just because their fun is less important to you than your sense of control. Moreover, I mentioned making a character with multiple level dips specifically to say that each one was built around a theme and predicated by role play. But I discern that this was ignored so that you could be snide.
Well that's fine, I don't have any goofy words like munchkin or dipper I can throw around at people who choose to limit options unnecessarily. I don't waste my time creating a lexicon to insult people with different preferences. So I guess I'll just settle for the default English terms that I can't write in my posts.
***.
lol...ok POT...you go right ahead and call the Kettle black...the discussion IS about PrC's...yoyu don't like OUR style...We don't like yours...but you think YOUR way is the BEST way...I only state that this is the way WE deal with the ISSUE of the thread... You are mr disagreement here... WHY...you will never have to play in OUR game...so what does it matter to you...are you the Saul of Tarsis for all min/maxers...
When it all comes down to this...you just come across as mad bc someone elses game doesn't fit YOU... WE have a GAME that fits US...and it YOU that suggest WE have a problem, and have continued to do so...so before you talk about maturity...a subject you obviously need more time thinking about...you should leave off your pedantic rantings... You can go ahead and flame me again...I am going to cease wasting time with YOU on here... these folks on this board probably don't wanna here any more of this... so without further adieu...and in the interest of those who have to listen to this.... I am not gonna comment any more about this.... Somehow I doubt you will be so inclined
|
|
The DM is and should be in control of his game.
I am gonna disagree, to a point. The players are the ones who are really in control of the game. As the DM you cannot tell a player what to do with his character as much as he could tell you that you're running a game wrong. If you've got this problem its no longer a game in my opinion. There isn't control, so much as there is give and take. The player's must understand that your world will have certain things happen, and as a GM you must understand that the players are going to change things about your world.
It is true that the DM is the final arbiter of what the rules say, but if you push enough your going to push those players right out your door and into someone elses game.
That said, if you're not having any fun as the GM because everyone runs allover the place willy-nilly then it has become a job. You're babysitting, and that's no fun.
The key here is to find a happy medium where both the players and the GM are going to be happy. Sometimes that requires houserules, sometimes its letting players do whatever they want. How you reach your happy-gaming-medium is different for each group. Prestige Classes are just one of those hot button issues because they're so abundant. For a GM having to learn about each prestige class takes a lot of time and makes the game harder to run, so bloat becomes an issue. How you deal with each problem is really what makes a game great though. I've personally allowed almost everything, but there are quite a few things I've banned over the years (amongst them many prestige classes). Its just part of the give and take with my own group.
stuff
I'll concede that the root problem is essentially a difference of tastes. Although I don't know that a DM should be in complete control of "his" game because it's everyone's game.
I don't know that I drip scorn in every post, but I get it across pretty well in some. It's a skill. ;)
Honestly, my problem isn't with the specific limits unless I'm actually in that game. It's with this idea that anyone else should get to limit you. And that's something that a lot of people take for granted. "We voted and decided we don't like archmage, so you can't take it," is the kind of thing that gets my hackles up. Since when does anyone get to vote on what one person plays? That's infuriating.
Anyway, I still don't think I'm the bad guy here precisely because when someone disagrees with me in the fashion you have - polite, coherent, and relatively thoughtful - I don't have any issue with responding the same way.
Waaaaargharrbl
Well, one of the people you quoted there was agreeing with and standing up for you. But don't let that stand between you and lunatic ravings.
I am not gonna comment any more about this.... Somehow I doubt you will be so inclined
Appeals to authority and straw men, nice. Well prepare to high-five your imaginary friend, because I'm not subject to the limitations you're trying to place on me. That's the whole point of why we've been arguing, I'm saying that no one has a right to limit my actions to less than what I'm capable of doing, and you've asserted that you do in fact have that right. I suppose if I thought liberty was a sin I'd be sitting pretty inside your pillow fort telling the other kids they can't come in.
By the way, I'd hate to be didactic or anything, but to use debate terminology, you've just tried to slime me. You made a final (rather weak) point, and then suggested that I cannot respond without proving it correct. That's essentially an attempt to force the discourse to proceed in the direction your require by silencing dissension. This seems to sum up your world-view nicely.
In any case, perhaps I am pedantic. It's a hazard of my career, when I recognize ignorance I want to replace it with understanding.
/cue scorn drippings
[EDIT]
Note that I had stopped posting in this thread after stating essentially that I had nothing left to argue with you: "Not much left to say, is there?"
You summoned me back up by casting blame like leaves on the wind.
I'll concede that the root problem is essentially a difference of tastes. Although I don't know that a DM should be in complete control of "his" game because it's everyone's game.
I don't know that I drip scorn in every post, but I get it across pretty well in some. It's a skill. ;)
Honestly, my problem isn't with the specific limits unless I'm actually in that game. It's with this idea that anyone else should get to limit you. And that's something that a lot of people take for granted. "We voted and decided we don't like archmage, so you can't take it," is the kind of thing that gets my hackles up. Since when does anyone get to vote on what one person plays? That's infuriating.
Anyway, I still don't think I'm the bad guy here precisely because when someone disagrees with me in the fashion you have - polite, coherent, and relatively thoughtful - I don't have any issue with responding the same way.
I don't mean the DM as Stalin / Hitler, just as the refree. It is interactive, within limits and the style of the game the DM is running. I don't limit my players choices on what to do within the game (and God knows they have come up with some odd decisions over the years), or where to go (34 years of campaign development givers me a lot of space for my players to wonder around in -- even if I have to update material on the fly it generally works). I do confine player choices (in class, feats, spells etc.) to what exists (or can reasonably exist) within my campaign world. Having said that an awful lot exists within that world.
Again, the types of choice you're talking are really a matter of campaign style. Some are wide open, others have some limits. As I said, I don't see any "bad guys" here, just people whose responses are shaped by their own gaming preferences and experiences.
I like the concept of a prestige class, but I do prefer they be tied to the setting. I'm not a fan of the "system-patch" classes intended to making multi-class casters viable. Hopefully Pathfinder RPG addresses the underlying problems, obviating the need for such classes.
I also think that each character should be eligible for a single prestige class, which would have the happy side effect of fixing out of control saving throws...
As I said, I don't see any "bad guys" here, just people whose responses are shaped by their own gaming preferences and experiences.
Since you mention it, I was just thinking to myself that a lot of the differences in opinion are probably due to our introduction to the game.
I was weaned on Planescape, so the idea of saying no to something is anathema unless it's for a very specific campaign idea. (I'd like everyone to play undead, or members of a knightly order, or pirates, that kind of thing... I've never been against reasonable limits defined by setting, I've been against rules set in stone for every game at a given table.)
The DM is and should be in control of his game.I am gonna disagree, to a point.
The group should play the game by a style they all enjoy. And because not all players and gms like the same style, not everyone should play together. As someone said here before, if you have a group and someone wants to join, they may do so, but must be okay with the style that is played. If they don't like it, they better look for another group. It's of no use for anyone involved if there's no agreement on that.
And though many people don't know it or like it, D&D and d20 provide a basic rules system, that has to be heavily customized for every group. It's an illusion to believe, that everyone is playing the same game.And trying to figure out how to handle some things is not about taking away the fun from some poeple, but about optimizing the game for the needs of your group.
The designers can offer some options and theplayers can decide if they want to use them. And people here are discussing how to make make PrCs work better for one particular group of playing styles. The people in charge with pathfinder may decide to follow this direction, or take another. In any way, they are not making a way for everyone, but a variant for some groups.
Hating prestige classes? Nah. Hating dipping? Nope. Hating the abuse of? Definitely.
Pretige classes add a lot of flavor, they can turn a boring spell caster or a standard rogue or a dull fighter into something new and fresh. Sure someone could play a fighter in a different fashion but prestige classes just add a certain level of customization that is at the heart of 3rd edition in general.
Dipping, while normally indicative of a power gamer, isn't so bad when the person has a good background reason for it. This is, of course, provided the dip is done for the purpose of their background rather than the background being an excuse to power game. There's one thing I do believe and that is that prestige classes are supposed to be PRESTIGIOUS, special, cool, nifty, not something you simply level in to. I'm open to a lot of things provided there's a good RP reason behind it.
Abuse. It's very easy to abuse things with prestige classes and dipping. Sure, to some degree there should be a level of character optimization but it's far too easy to cross the line. Just remember that the DM tends to have final say and prestige classes should be run by them anyway, one should never simply assume a source book is fair game just because Wizards published it.
In the end it depends on the playing style of the group and what you or your DM are willing to tolerate. After all the game is about fun and if the DM is running a game for a bunch of power gaming grunts when he wants a game of diplomacy and cloak and dagger then he should probably find a new group or pick up a copy of Legend of the Five Rings or Song of Ice and Fire RPG :P
Another issue that jumps out is when the DM wants every encounter to be "challenging" then pumps up the "normal" monsters but doesn't want you to "munchkin" your character or "optimize" at all.
It's a side issue, but I think it is directly related.
In the end it's all trust issues.