DM's forfeit power

[el-remmen]

In a perfect game world, it would work like that. And if pre-reqs for prestige class were less strict, made more sense, allowed for substitutions.. It would work. As is, in too many cases you might as well ban them as to do that, since you'll get pretty much the same results.

I have always looked at PrC requirements are "suggested requirements" an idea of the kinds of things the character should have to join such a group or take on such a role.

I mean, PrCs are in the DMG, which means they are totally up to the DM how to implement and have them supplment his/her game.

 

[Barak]

I have always looked at PrC requirements are "suggested requirements" an idea of the kinds of things the character should have to join such a group or take on such a role.

I mean, PrCs are in the DMG, which means they are totally up to the DM how to implement and have them supplment his/her game.

With such an house rule, I'd have no problem with "secret" PrCs.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, PrCs are in the DMG, which means they are totally up to the DM how to implement and have them supplment his/her game.

There is that.

Though, to be honest, I've kept to looking at PrCs as world building tools. They are there to help define roles in the game world as a whole, not to satisfy PC's desires. So, I'm not terribly concerned if a particular PC can't easily meet the prerequisites. At the moment, the campaign I'm running has no PrCs at all. It isn't that I've banned them - I simply haven't yet seen a role in the world that needs abilities so unique that they call for a PrC.

If he wants it bad enough, he'll undertake a search for ways. Within reason, ways will be made available, if he's got the guts and tenacity. You don't go joining the Knights of the Round Table without goign through a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, right?

 

[gizmo33]

I've never really been convinced that PrCs are useful "world building tools." IMO A fighter that joins the Knights of the Round Table doesn't need a prestige class to make him feel more a part of that organization. If that fighter then get's married, buys a warship, and loses his faithful cohort in battle, I don't see the need to provided a Married, Mariner, and Bereaved PrC for each of those events in the character's life. Anything that requires a unique set of rules IMO could, and should be a standard character class - like Assassin, or Arcane Archer. (With the exception of those PrCs that balance multi-class issues).

 

[el-remmen]

There is that.

Though, to be honest, I've kept to looking at PrCs as world building tools. They are there to help define roles in the game world as a whole, not to satisfy PC's desires. So, I'm not terribly concerned if a particular PC can't easily meet the prerequisites. At the moment, the campaign I'm running has no PrCs at all. It isn't that I've banned them - I simply haven't yet seen a role in the world that needs abilities so unique that they call for a PrC.

Oh, I feel the same way. My last game had no PCs with PrCs and only 2 NPCs that had them.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I find that character development is mroe organic if campaigns start at 1st level with a relatively restricted n7umber of options (example: core rules only) and then open up. Yes, a player can still plan a character out 20 levels, but their experiences from adventure to adventure will tend to change that plan.

It's when you start at say 7th level -- or introduce a replacement character who "appears" at a higher level -- that you get the overly focused, optimized Class1/Class2/PrC1/PrC2 characters.

 

[Cadfan]

Any time a player can use the rules to veto the creative input of the DM, the game potentially suffers.

The problem with statements like this is that the DM's contribution is labeled as "creative input." You could write an equally correct statement as follows: "Any time a player can use the rules to veto the arbitrary and irrational whims of a DM, the gane benefits." The statement is loaded either way.

Its like saying, "cops should be allowed to just plain shoot guilty murderers in the street." By describing the people as guilty murderers in advance, you poison the well.

In the D&D context, the real problem, as understood by actually thoughtful people who avoid knee jerk responses, is that elements of game design that improve what a player can accomplish automatically decrease the amount a DM can make up. And sometimes what a player wants to accomplish is good and healthy for the game, and sometimes not. Likewise, sometimes what a DM wants to make up is good and healthy for the game, and sometimes not.

 

[Gold Roger]

The whole idea of a conflict over power between DM and players over the power in the game is mind boggling to me. The concept that the game suffers if the DM looses the right to control his players is absurd. It's like this:

A sentence like:

Any time a player can use the rules to veto the creative input of the DM, the game potentially suffers.

Sounds logical and great until you realise that the sentence:

Any time a DM can veto the creative input of the players at will, the game potentially suffers.

There, you've got a dilemma. Look at both sides and you quickly realize that this whole thing is a pointless conflict. It's a struggle of power, a wish of dominance and sense of "my fun first". Thus we venture into the realm of interpersonal drama and leave the realm of roleplaying games.

Whenever there's a disconnect between DM and players or players and players you've got a conflict brewing.

A working RPG group has to be a group of homogenous people ready to work together and step once in a while to ensure an equal amount of fun. Control and power over the game has to be shared not put into one hand or divided among disconnected groups. The DM is the team leader, that helps the communication along and moderates it.

The idea of the DM as the ultimate arbiter of the game and fun is outdated has to be relished, but not in favor of player control, but in favor of group control.


For the issue of organic character developement:

Allow a certain degree of rebuilding based on in-game events. If characters can be rebuild players aren't as concerned with "getting the build right". Organic character developement isn't so disadvantegous. An example:

The ranger 7 Whispersand gets into touch with her natural side and wants to become more atuned to the natural world. Now, honestly, multiclassing into druid at that point would suck. But if Whispersand was to leave into the desert one eve during downtime, where she trains with the elders of stone and returns as an Druid 7 with some realocated point buy points (she developed new spirituality, but left behind some of her physical training) some ranger proficiencies and feats/skills that hind at her old self left . Now that's organic, after all linear advancement can never really be organic, since true developement also means you get worse at your old abilities as you turn to new things.

 

[Mark CMG]

The problem with statements like this is that the DM's contribution is labeled as "creative input."

Nope. The DM's creative input is labeled creative input. What the players do to a DM who is abusing his position by irrationally flinging fiat and whim like so much monkey poo upon his gaming group is surely what the DM deserves. Don't nitpick or you lose the importance of the sentiment. (And I'm looking at you, too, Gold Roger! Though, a happy belated B-Day to you, all the same . . . )

 

[SWBaxter]

In a perfect game world, it would work like that. And if pre-reqs for prestige class were less strict, made more sense, allowed for substitutions.. It would work. As is, in too many cases you might as well ban them as to do that, since you'll get pretty much the same results.

I use the "test-based prerequisites" suggestion from Unearthed Arcana, where instead of strict mechanical prerequisites I set up a mini-adventure that somebody who has the prereqs should be able to complete in a straightforward fashion. Somebody who's short a few prereqs can still succeed in the test, whether it's through creativity or luck. Seems to work well enough so far, and it allows me to fudge the prereqs so a PC who wants to be an Archmage (for example) can just concentrate on acquiring the skills and feats that fit their own idea of what an Archmage should be. If it looks reasonable to me, I set up the test to favour their build, even if they don't exactly match the DMG prereqs.