The Trend from Prestige to Base

If this has already been re-hashed 3,000 times, forgive me.

Ok, if you take all the new base classes since 3.5 and look at them, there is a trend brewing...

Some Examples: Knight, Samurai, Ninja, Swashbuckler, and Duskblade are basically level 1 versions of older PrCs (knight protector, master samurai, ninja scout, duelist, spellsword).

Other base classes have a flavor that screams "I coulda been a PrC": Healer, Warmage, Beguiler, Dragon Shaman

Still others seem to be trying to fix the problem of multi-classers not working out well: Spell-thief, Duskblade.

The third Introduce a new concept to the game not seen before or handled with the core: Psion, Incarnate, Favored Soul, Dragon Shaman, Marshal, Warlock

The last is the orientals; no further need to go into them (Samurai, Shugenja, Wu Jen, Ninja)

Aside from some estoric concepts, you could now use ALL base classes and remove ALL PrCs from the game. You could go a step further and remove multi-classing, but I kinda like keeping it in for fine-tuning.

So, is the PrC a dying breed, with the trend toward interesting base classes? Is this good or bad?

I much prefer prestige classes for specialized roles than base classes.

In my opinion, before 4e is published, someone at Wizards should sit down and work out a coherent strategy for what should be a base class and what should be a prestige class.

In my opinion, a base class should:

1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.
2) Not be bound to a particular culture. Samurai should not be a base class. Some sort of generic 'Knight' class (including both Samurai and western Knight concepts) could be, although not with that name. Likewise, Barbarian is a poor name for a class - it should be Berserker, or a PrC.
3) Not be bound by alignment. I really like base-class paladins, but really hate non-LG paladins. The logically consistent position requires that paladins become a PrC.
4) Be sufficiently broad. Sufficiently broad is quite a difficult one to tie down, but unless you can reasonably see members of every PHB PC race taking the class, it's probably too narrow.
5) Be customisable. I would like to see the talent trees from d20 Modern adopted, so that "a druid with a bit more shapechanging" is possible without the need for a specially-designed PrC.

PrCs should exist for the more advanced concepts, the culturally-tied concepts, the narrow concepts, and whatever else.

I would rather see the multiclass spellcaster problem fixed than have either base classes or prestige classes designed to fix the problem. That said, I think there was niche for a Mageblade/Duskblade/'Elf' class in the game.

Remathilis said:

Aside from some estoric concepts, you could now use ALL base classes and remove ALL PrCs from the game. You could go a step further and remove multi-classing, but I kinda like keeping it in for fine-tuning.

Click to expand...

Of course, you always could...

So, is the PrC a dying breed, with the trend toward interesting base classes? Is this good or bad?

Click to expand...

No. Prestige Classes sell books. They're here to stay. Besides, when done well, they fill a perfectly valid place in the game system.

I dislike 90% of all PRCs, I only dislike 75% of new core classes. So its probably a good thing for me. That said I don't want to oversaturate my game with too many core classes either.

Edit:
I think PRCs as originally defined in the 3.0 DMG have not been done for the most part.
PRCs should involve give and take from progressing as a core class, and perhaps be marginally more powerful.
PRCs should fill niches core classes can't and should have abilities that aren't easily duplicated with the core classes or with feats.
PRCs should only be reserved for classes that shouldn't attainable at low levels or that should have special entry requirements (not just an archtype that someone should be able to begin as at low level, this can vary by campaign).

Enough of my ranting, hope that made sense.

The growing number of Core Classes is in my opinion the direct result of one of the major omissions in the (original) Core Books:

The classes introduced in the core rules are not really 'core', because they have too much flavor added to fit into every imaginable setting.
There are no rules for creating your own (balanced) core classes.

What they did was this:

They introduce some core classes.
They continue with indicating that it is ok for the DM to create his/her own Core Classes.

They then 'explain' how to do that by mentioning some vague swapping of abilities.

Nowhere in the core books has been laid out a neat, balanced system to create your own Core Class. If this had been the case, DM's could have build their own core classes.

Because they haven't, they continue to release WotC constructed core classes.

The same goes essentially for PrC's.

Herzog

delericho said:

In my opinion, before 4e is published, someone at Wizards should sit down and work out a coherent strategy for what should be a base class and what should be a prestige class.

In my opinion, a base class should:

1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.
2) Not be bound to a particular culture. Samurai should not be a base class. Some sort of generic 'Knight' class (including both Samurai and western Knight concepts) could be, although not with that name. Likewise, Barbarian is a poor name for a class - it should be Berserker, or a PrC.
3) Not be bound by alignment. I really like base-class paladins, but really hate non-LG paladins. The logically consistent position requires that paladins become a PrC.
4) Be sufficiently broad. Sufficiently broad is quite a difficult one to tie down, but unless you can reasonably see members of every PHB PC race taking the class, it's probably too narrow.
5) Be customisable. I would like to see the talent trees from d20 Modern adopted, so that "a druid with a bit more shapechanging" is possible without the need for a specially-designed PrC.

PrCs should exist for the more advanced concepts, the culturally-tied concepts, the narrow concepts, and whatever else.

Click to expand...

That is just about my veiw on PrCs. For example, I am designing a 'woodsman' class for my homebrew to replace the ranger because I am designing the ranger more after the 'LotR' archetype (ie the core ranger class). Just one of many concepts that are kinad mucked up with WotC's indecisiveness on what is a base and what is a prestigue class.

Still lovin' that post6 though, I couldn't have said it better.

Well I'm no fan of PrCs as presented. I find the whole requirements issue ludicrous. "I'd love to knight you, good sir, for your duties and the fact that you're of noble birth, but you're not quite a good enough rider and that power attack needs some work."

The way requirements forces a PC to plan this specific path to gain membership to an organization that he has no contact with at first level just bugs me in a way I cannot politely quantify.

I'd much rather leave membership into special groups, organizations, cabals, guilds etc., which are often associated with the mindset of PrCs, a thing of campaign context as opposed to derived from the mechanics of a PC.

So, for me, core classes all the way. That's not to say I don't have any characters with PrCs, I just took the PrCs that I wish were a core class from the get go.

Lastly, I bet if you took some of the more powerful PrCs (I'm looking at you Radiant Servant of Pelor) and converted them to a core class you'd come out with something that is far better balanced.

Tell me, what is wrong with a first level wizard who is a member of the Arcane Order? Or a first level inquisitor? Or how about a first level assassin?

Why not just alter the entrance requirements to Prestige classes then? I'm leary of the 'You get a powerful PrC by buying your way in with crappy feats' design motif anyway.

Incidentally, yes there was a very recent thread closely related to this. That said, this gives me a chance to compose and assemble a few of my spots, and someone has already said about 80% of my stance:

delericho said:

In my opinion, before 4e is published, someone at Wizards should sit down and work out a coherent strategy for what should be a base class and what should be a prestige class.

In my opinion, a base class should:

1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.
2) Not be bound to a particular culture. Samurai should not be a base class. Some sort of generic 'Knight' class (including both Samurai and western Knight concepts) could be, although not with that name. Likewise, Barbarian is a poor name for a class - it should be Berserker, or a PrC.
3) Not be bound by alignment. I really like base-class paladins, but really hate non-LG paladins. The logically consistent position requires that paladins become a PrC.
4) Be sufficiently broad. Sufficiently broad is quite a difficult one to tie down, but unless you can reasonably see members of every PHB PC race taking the class, it's probably too narrow.
5) Be customisable. I would like to see the talent trees from d20 Modern adopted, so that "a druid with a bit more shapechanging" is possible without the need for a specially-designed PrC.

PrCs should exist for the more advanced concepts, the culturally-tied concepts, the narrow concepts, and whatever else.

Click to expand...

Except point #3 (see below), this pretty well sums it up for me. Aside from that I think the solution of using faux prestige classes (they're really sort of "advanced" classes) to help acheive multi-class concepts (or other fringe concepts) is a perfectly acceptable and elegant solution, in that it

1. allows the GM finer control over the flavor of the game (by virtue of easily deciding whether to include or exclude the concept by allowing or disallowing the PrC.)
2. prevents you from further complicating the rules base by poluting it with extra rules meant to address special cases like multi-class-caster or what have you.

I think base classes should be broad. I don't necessarily think the paladin (citing a commonly debated example) should be a PrC since I do see such a thing as an "apprentice paladin." That said I do think that it could definitely afford to be more broad, something like a one-class solution to all your holy warrior needs like Green Ronin's (desperate in need of a 3.5 update) holy warrior. Simply choose the strictures and abilities appropriate to your alignment and order.

I think the deluge of new core classes is not a good thing. One thing that people fail to realize when designing classes (or accepting them into their game) is that there are some core niches and competancies assumed by the default D&D adventuring models. Characters that start with one of the core classes and then take a different spin with a PrC tend to have these competancies. New core classes all too often do not. Someone on these boards in a thread that has probably been wiped out was making this case about the swashbuckler. IMC, I similarly found the spellfilch wanting when it came to living up to the rigors of adventuring life. So unless you are conscious and explicitly compensate for these shifts, new base classes tend to perform poorly compared to their core class / prc cousins.

I do occasionally allow new core classes. But I tend to be instantly dubious to the point of outright banning when the new core class could simply be represented by a feat chain. (And I know I have said this before but it bears repeating...) CW Samurai, I am looking at you.

On a more campaign management (and potentially personal) note, as I run things, every base class means that there are apprentice versions of this class lurking about somewhere. Elsewise, the existance of a PC of that base class seems incosistant and buggers with my SOD. For me, keeping the stable of base classes manageable and conducive to a consistent world background means limiting them to those that are broad and can realize a variety, instead of a few, character concepts.

Remathilis said:

So, is the PrC a dying breed, with the trend toward interesting base classes? Is this good or bad?

Click to expand...

Seems to me it's more a matter of WOTC not having a real clear idea of where they want to go - they still put out a whole bunch of prestige classes, they've just also realized that base classes sell so they're publishing those, too. The inevitable overlap is because the stuff that sells best is that which covers popular concepts.

I personally would rather see new abilities addressed through feats and feat chains rather than new classes (base or prestige), and it seems to me in the long term that would make for a much more coherent rule system. But classes sell and also consume much more pagespace, so I can understand why publishers prefer them.