Should the Bard, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger be Prestige Classes?

dead · Aug 12, 2004

The DMG says something about Prestige Classes needing to be fairly specific and Classes needing to be more general. Well . . . I was just thinking the other day that the Bard, Druid, Paladin and Ranger were reasonably specific and could possibly be treated as Prestige Classes.

Coz if you think about it, a Bard is really just a musical Rogue, a Druid is just a nature Cleric, a Paladin is just a Lawful Good Fighter, and a Ranger is an outdoor's Fighter. Yeah sure, they've all got special powers that make them unique, but couldn't these just be picked up in a Prestige Class?

I don't know, I don't like to tamper too much with the rules.

GlassJaw · Aug 12, 2004

Let me think about this for a second....no.

They're fine by me as classes.

Belen · Aug 12, 2004

GlassJaw said:
Let me think about this for a second....no.

They're fine by me as classes.

Agreed. The answer is no. They are good for classes.

JoeGKushner · Aug 12, 2004

Depends on the campaign. In good old first edition, the bard was like a super prestige class requiring all sorts of craziness to get into.

Unearthed Arcana has some good stuff for this.

Tolen Mar · Aug 12, 2004

Of all of those you listed, I used to think only the paladin should be a PrC.

I dont anymore. If you look the class progression it really does work like a PrC anyway. You can turn the undead as acleric until you've progressed as a paladin a while, nor do you get any spells. So at low levels, you are just a devout fighter trying to prove his worth. Once you've 'qualified' you start getting the paladin-like powers.

The others...nah.

diaglo · Aug 12, 2004

they are PrCs in my game.

so is the assassin, illusionist, and monk.

the only core classes are:

fighting man, cleric, and magic-user.

an optional thief class was added with Supplement I Greyhawk.

the rest have requirements to qualify (ergo that makes them PrCs).

Planesdragon · Aug 12, 2004

Yep, all PrCs. No, wait--the Ranger isn't. Paladins, Bards, Druids, Priests, and a few others are.

The arcane/divine magic paradigm is actually expanded IMC, with there being numberous magical sources that are all slightly different. Everyone starts as either a wizard or a mage if they want to be a spellcaster, and advance from there.

Felix · Aug 12, 2004

Actually since the first level of all base classes give something pretty nifty, I could see some argument for all classes requiring something before taking them. They wouldn't quite be PrC's, but it would allow for a touch of diversification within the class ranks, and also thin out the multiclassing crowd.

Wizard would require 4 ranks in Knowledge (arcane)
Cleric 4 ranks in Know (religion)
Fighter requires Weapon Focus or 4 ranks in Knowledge (tactics)
Rogue requires either Alertness, Stealthy, or 4 ranks in Bluff
Bard requires 4 ranks in Perform
Monk requires 4 ranks in Tumble
Druid requires 4 ranks Know (nature)
Ranger requires 4 ranks survival.
Paladin requires 4 ranks in Profession (squire)

And Barbarian and Sorc could only be taken from 1st level since they're something you are, and not really something you learn how to be. So these guys would be a little scarier since they could have two PC class levels where others had only 1... I'll think about this one.

So players would have one level of Expert, two levels of full HP, an expanded class skill list from Expert, a +2 to Will saves, which everyone likes, and since it's an expert level, you wouldn't really need to make challenges that much tougher. It's just a representation of what the PC was doing in their adolescence that prepared them for a class level later in their life.

diaglo said:
an optional thief class was added with Supplement I Greyhawk.

Turn Undead Edition!!!

Henry · Aug 12, 2004

dead said:
Coz if you think about it, a Bard is really just a musical Rogue, a Druid is just a nature Cleric, a Paladin is just a Lawful Good Fighter, and a Ranger is an outdoor's Fighter. Yeah sure, they've all got special powers that make them unique, but couldn't these just be picked up in a Prestige Class?

If one wanted to extend this to ultimate generalities, all one needs are spell-guy, skill-guy, and fight-guy (or gal). I understand that Unearthed Arcana actually has done this in variant rules. It might be worth checking out, if you have a bookstore handy that allows browsing.

AFGNCAAP · Aug 12, 2004

Henry said:
If one wanted to extend this to ultimate generalities, all one needs are spell-guy, skill-guy, and fight-guy (or gal). I understand that Unearthed Arcana actually has done this in variant rules. It might be worth checking out, if you have a bookstore handy that allows browsing.

That it does. And it's nifty. Really nifty.

But, the big thing is that you can't easily replicate all of the PHB core classes with it--it'd take a big ol' system of feats, flaws, & traits to tweak it just right; and even then, spellcasting wouldn't quite be right, & psionics would need a lot of work (if not its own generic class).

Personally, I wouldn't mind having D&D using the 3 generic classes, and have all of the archetypes/core classes be a sort of PrC. However, there will be players out there that want to be able to play a class concept immediately--from level 1 on up, whether it's a paladin, druid, ranger, assassin, samurai, ninja, mystically-themed monk, arcane archer, swashbuckler/duelist, etc. And that's just fine, too.

Should the Bard, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger be Prestige Classes?

dead

Explorer

GlassJaw

Hero

Belen

Adventurer

JoeGKushner

First Post

Tolen Mar

First Post

diaglo

Adventurer

Planesdragon

First Post

Felix

Explorer

Henry

Autoexreginated

AFGNCAAP

First Post

Similar Threads