for the "core only" purists - availability of PrCs by class

[Kahuna Burger]

We've had a couple of threads recently where the joys of playing with only the core rulebooks/srd were expounded upon, and it was claimed even by some of those who enjoy using extras that you could have a full and enriching game with just the core.

My problem with this idea is that by my reconning, the core prestige classes available just aren't evenly geared to the various classes. If you are a rogue, aside from your normal progression, there are a good 4 prestige classes that are easy for you to get into (one multiclassed) and take the rogue idea in interesting new directions. If you are a druid - sorry, you're gonna be the phb druid. If you want to combine arcane spellcasting and fighting, the SRD has 2 different models to follow with PrCs. If you want to combine being a monk and well, anything... sorry, better decide how many monk levels you will ever want and get them all out of the way at once. EIGHT of the 15 available PrCs represent a way to explore the arcane casting characters.

I don't mind that the PrCs in the core books don't cover a wide variety of character types because there are all sorts of other options out there. But I do think it means that "core only" games are biased towards certain classes and character concepts.

 

[jdrakeh]

But I do think it means that "core only" games are biased towards certain classes and character concepts.

I think that you're right about the core books being biased towards certain classes in regard tp PRCs, but I don't think that this bias makes it impossible for 'people' to play a full and enriching game using only the core rules. The only thing that you've demonstrated is that this bias makes it impossible for you to play a full and enriching game using only the core rules

[Note: Incidentally, I've played in a 'core only' game that revolved around the exploits of a traveling carnival troupe consisting of a Cugel-esque 'magician' (i.e., a con-artist), a tattooed Dwarven strongman, an Elven contortionist, etc. I think the only really 'normal' character was a cookie cutter bard.]

 

[maggot]

My game is core only and avoids prestige-class bias by not allowing any of them.

All character concepts are dealt with via the core classes.

 

[petenik]

My game is core only and avoids prestige-class bias by not allowing any of them.

All character concepts are dealt with via the core classes.

If I were to run a core only game, I would do the same thing. I do like PrC's and all that, but the core ones leave me flat.

 

[Remathilis]

Hence why I prefer the "limited option" route for PrCs: Pick 10 prestige classes (mostly from the Complete line) that fill needed niches, and there are your options.

For a traditional game (no fancy gimmicks) I'd allow (for example)

Spellsword
Knight Protector
Thief-Acrobat
Mage of the Arcane Order
Nightsong Enforcer
Nightsong Infiltrator
Master of Many Forms
Virtuoso
Tattooed Monk
Divine Oracle
Sacred Exorcist
Fatespinner
All DMG PrCs

There, a mix of some useful organizations, fun but not broken classes, and something for people who want to diversify without breaking too far afield.

Then again, if you want STRICT core, your not going to see to many PrCs. Thats fine, but I'd at least keep Arcane Trickster, Eldrich Knight, and Mystic Theurge open to those who wish to multi-class.

 

[Altalazar]

My game is core only and avoids prestige-class bias by not allowing any of them.

All character concepts are dealt with via the core classes.

Then you are not running core - you are running a custom set of rules removing part of the core of the game. Which is fine, but then that is not a 'core-only' game, it is something less.

 

[Nifft]

Then you are not running core - you are running a custom set of rules removing part of the core of the game. Which is fine, but then that is not a 'core-only' game, it is something less.

Look more closely at the Prestige Classes section of your DMG. PrCs are listed as a variant rule, which means PrCs are not core.

-- N, not core either

 

[Grimstaff]

My problem with this idea is that by my reconning, the core prestige classes available just aren't evenly geared to the various classes. If you are a rogue, aside from your normal progression, there are a good 4 prestige classes that are easy for you to get into (one multiclassed) and take the rogue idea in interesting new directions. If you are a druid - sorry, you're gonna be the phb druid. If you want to combine arcane spellcasting and fighting, the SRD has 2 different models to follow with PrCs. If you want to combine being a monk and well, anything... sorry, better decide how many monk levels you will ever want and get them all out of the way at once. EIGHT of the 15 available PrCs represent a way to explore the arcane casting characters.

I don't mind that the PrCs in the core books don't cover a wide variety of character types because there are all sorts of other options out there. But I do think it means that "core only" games are biased towards certain classes and character concepts.

You may be interpreting the core PRCs a little too literally (or not literally enough?). Druids can be Hierophants, Horizon Walkers, and Mystic Theurges, Monks make good Shadowdancers, etc. Maybe try going back over these PRCs and look at them from the perspective of the skills and feats that are prerequisite rather than what "seems" to be the right class to come into the PRC with. Barbarian/Bard Eldritch Knights? Why not?

 

[Quasqueton]

My game is core only and avoids prestige-class bias by not allowing any of them.

All character concepts are dealt with via the core classes.

Ditto for me.

Then you are not running core - you are running a custom set of rules removing part of the core of the game. Which is fine, but then that is not a 'core-only' game, it is something less.

DMG page 176: "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM."

Quasqueton

 

[jdrakeh]

Then you are not running core - you are running a custom set of rules removing part of the core of the game. Which is fine, but then that is not a 'core-only' game, it is something less.

That's like saying that if you don't have a player character of every possible class and race combination in your game, then you're not playing with the core rules. I think 'core only' means 'using only rules from the core books' not 'using every single rule in the core books'. Note that the core rules provide options - and options are, by definition, optional