Lower PrC Requirements

[Gryphon Gold]

I've been considering lowering the PrC requirements for characters in my games, and I'd like to know what others think about or have experienced with this, especially in regards to the PrCs with spellcasting levels. Specifically, I'm considering lowering the requirements so that each PrC can be taken four levels earlier than official rules allow. Do you think this would be game-breaking, or has something like this been game-breaking in your experience?

[Xpltvdeleted]

I think lowering the level requirements will take the "prestige" out of prestige classes. If character was supposed to have easy access to them they would just be called classes. Just my 2 cp.

[Benicio Del Espada]

5th level to qualify, 6th to start, seems to be the minimum. Some classes should require a couple levels of suckage, if they're that great later.

[Maezer]

I think you will see a definate power gain. How broken it will be lies primarily in what Prestige classes you are giving away. Requiring an investment in feats/bab/skills particularly non-optimal ones is a control on their power level which you'd be removing.

My biggest fear, would be stacking pretige classes (using more than just the Pathfinder updated prestige classes) which could get out of hand even more than it already was in 3.5.

Honestly if you and the player are willing I'd take the time to write a custom class 1-20. Use the prestige class ability progressions as a guideline, but you are already adjusting rules just go all the way. And if you plan out the character path with the player it should give you a pretty good idea of what kind of power level they character will be at.

[Gryphon Gold]

I'm referring specifically to Pathfinder prestige classes.

[Grey Lensman]

It also depends on what other rules you may or may not have in place. The group I play in has a "one PrC per character" rule that has been strictly enforced from the beginning. The only exceptions are if the character is looking at 2 different 5 level prestige classes.

Other games, like SAGA Star Wars and D20 Modern are exempt from this rule, as taking multiple classes is part of the expected design of the game.

[Stebehil]

I think it could easily be game-breaking, or at least re-defining the game. That way, PrCs will become the norm, rather than something special, which the name Prestige Class implies IMO. Pathfinder specifically tries to get away from the overflow of PrCs we have seen in 3.5, and back to the basic classes. Making PrCs easier to qualify for is not what the authors intended. I would leave them special and set some hurdles to overcome. In fact, I require my players to explain to me how they are going about to start taking levels in the PrCs.
In the end, it is probably a matter of taste, but will make for a very different game.

Stefan

[Galnörag]

If most players qualify for the prestige class at level 5, and start at level 6, you could consider saying "you may start the prestige class early but must actually meet the necessary qualifications by level 5" This might actually not be possible for some prestige classes which require a minimum BAB of 5, but are themselves 3/4 classes.

I'm not sure how it would work, power wise, but it is a reasonable compromise.

[The Speaker in Dreams]

Well ... popular opinion here on the boards seems to be {to expand on Stebehil} that the PrC's are all less powerful (by design or otherwise), and so making them available with lesser requirement, *I think* isn't that big a deal.

As for taking "prestige" out of the PrC - by opinion of the board (often coupled with math and examples - "PrC X it the suck!") has already been done - I've yet to hear anyone say anything good about any existing PrC - or defend them as "good" choices. Really ... it's strange, but there you go.

Power-wise, PrC's have already lost the "prestige" as they seemingly do nothing other than weaken the character (Pathfinder Core's anyway), and make them sub-optimal choices for sub-optimal builds. {I'm paraphrasing board opinions as I've seen them.} So, on that front I'll say this: true "prestige" is a matter of game play and design. If the GM's putting the effort to make the Purple Dragon Knight "special" then it is. If it's just a matter of record-keeping and class abilities - then I suppose the PrC loses itself, then, yes? Beyond the title, pre-reqs and abilities - why does it matter at that point? Answer - it doesn't ... at all.

As for your specifics - I'm not sure about dropping 4 levels of reqs (or is that 4 levels total?) as it seems a bit much. If something has a +5 bab req, and you drop 4 levels off of this (say by the bab-req), then at +1 you could take the PrC at level 1 - it just seems odd to start there, though, IMO.

At the same time, as *just* a collection of *stuff* why not start there? By virtue of taking the class you're "sub-optimal" anyway, so you're already choosing a weaker character concept from the get ... I'd say maybe at *best* it might keep some power/utility in the mid-levels vs. the "you are the suck" that happens in the early-mid PrC progressions (from what I've seen).

If you *do* go that far, I'd suggest making a house rule of "Only 1 PrC per character - EVER!!!!" And enforce it with an iron gauntlet and a rod of smiting on hand. For my mileage, it *could* be worth it as long as the PrC matters heavily and/or provides some sort of in-game purpose (not character abilities alone mind you) - like membership to some important organization or something like that ... PrC's only go to level 10, so beyond that, you're definitely going to need/require additional classes and now you'll fall behind (I'd think) in the same way that most of the PrC bashers point out ... :shrugs:

I'm not a math-crunchie, though, so ... I'll leave that to those both more able and capable than myself.

[hogarth]

Gryphon Gold wrote:

I've been considering lowering the PrC requirements for characters in my games, and I'd like to know what others think about or have experienced with this, especially in regards to the PrCs with spellcasting levels. Specifically, I'm considering lowering the requirements so that each PrC can be taken four levels earlier than official rules allow. Do you think this would be game-breaking, or has something like this been game-breaking in your experience?

So Dragon Disciple can be taken at level 2? That seems a bit odd.

[vuron]

Yeah I'd advise against this change.

Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight 10 or Cleric 1/Wizard 1/Theurge 10 might fix some of the perceived issues with those class but you are making the gestalt classes very powerful in comparison to single-class PCs.

The Mystic Theurge example would be Divine Caster -1/Arcane Caster -1. I think rather than dropping PrC requirements it would be better to just drop the gestalt PrCs and offer full gestalt.

That way you can have Fighter 10/Wizard 10 characters or Fighter 6/Duelist 4/Bard 10 characters. That would allow for powerful and special characters without really unbalancing the single class vs multiclass math.

[LazarX]

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Well ... popular opinion here on the boards seems to be {to expand on Stebehil} that the PrC's are all less powerful (by design or otherwise), and so making them available with lesser requirement, *I think* isn't that big a deal.

As for taking "prestige" out of the PrC - by opinion of the board (often coupled with math and examples - "PrC X it the suck!") has already been done - I've yet to hear anyone say anything good about any existing PrC - or defend them as "good" choices. Really ... it's strange, but there you go.

There have been such folks such as myself who think that the Paizo PrCs are fine and in some cases a noted improvement over thier predecessors. I don't have however the manic posting obsession of the number crunch organisers who can only think in terms of BAB and the "must have 9th level spell access crowd" Never make the mistake of viewing the common wisdom by the mob that shouts the loudest.

Remember people tend to evaluate classes on what they want as a player, not neccessarily what balances the game as a whole.

Also remember that Pathfinder did make changes to nerf spellcasters in some ways. This was a deliberate move to somewhat moderate thier absolute dominance in upper level play. That's part of what the whining is about.

[voska66]

hogarth wrote:

Gryphon Gold wrote:

I've been considering lowering the PrC requirements for characters in my games, and I'd like to know what others think about or have experienced with this, especially in regards to the PrCs with spellcasting levels. Specifically, I'm considering lowering the requirements so that each PrC can be taken four levels earlier than official rules allow. Do you think this would be game-breaking, or has something like this been game-breaking in your experience?

So Dragon Disciple can be taken at level 2? That seems a bit odd.

Back in the Beta testing I had Dragon Disciple start at 2nd. Thought it was bit odd but I didn't realize that the -3 on the skill to qualify bit was for prestige class that weren't pathfinder. I do have to say I didn't really notice much difference other than fly was accessed 3 level sooner. It didn't have big impact though.

[hogarth]

voska66 wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Gryphon Gold wrote:

I've been considering lowering the PrC requirements for characters in my games, and I'd like to know what others think about or have experienced with this, especially in regards to the PrCs with spellcasting levels. Specifically, I'm considering lowering the requirements so that each PrC can be taken four levels earlier than official rules allow. Do you think this would be game-breaking, or has something like this been game-breaking in your experience?

So Dragon Disciple can be taken at level 2? That seems a bit odd.

Back in the Beta testing I had Dragon Disciple start at 2nd. Thought it was bit odd but I didn't realize that the -3 on the skill to qualify bit was for prestige class that weren't pathfinder. I do have to say I didn't really notice much difference other than fly was accessed 3 level sooner. It didn't have big impact though.

I'm not saying it would be overpowered per se, just odd. At that point, why not just make it into a base class?