How important are prestige classes?

[Altamont Ravenard]

A prestige class can add to a character, defining him/her even further, and IMO, are very valuable when used to that effect. Prestige class totally geared on mechanical advantage (not necessarily "munchkin" or "unbalanced" since said advantage could very well be in a very narrow area of expertise) don't suit me very much.

AR

 

[Len]

I don't think that's true. Most prcl we see in books cannot be made by multi classing.

Zappo didn't say you can reproduce every PrC with multi-classing, he said that the archetypes (whatever those are to you) can mostly be created by multi-classing.

Myself, I don't know what I'd do with my ranger-archer if my DM didn't allow me to take a few levels of figher.

(What? Fighter's not a prestige class???)

 

[Wombat]

My players always want to have the option to choose from a horde of PrCs.

Conversely, I have only had one player actually opt to take a PrC in any of my games, and that was a Loremaster.

I think PrCs are an interesting notion, but not all that necessary.

 

[pdkoning]

My players always want to have the option to choose from a horde of PrCs.
Conversely, I have only had one player actually opt to take a PrC in any of my games, and that was a Loremaster.
I think PrCs are an interesting notion, but not all that necessary.

In the games I play, no player ever wanted a prestige class, everyone just sticks to the core classes. We don't even multiclass.
I must admit the above sounds strange, but I really am not interested in most prestige classes and/or multiclassing. I do however appreciate people who play different archetypes with a core class. In my opinion core classes nearly cover any archetype.

 

[drunkmoogle]

To me, as a GM, it is very important; it adds to the "oh crap, we're fighting a ________" factor within the game.

To my players, just keeping that option open is what I do, only because I use them. It's easy to munchkinize certain prestige classes.

Prestige classes add to the customization of the characters in the world; always a plus in my book.

However, PrCs tend to lead to munchkinism and the like, which is why it may be a turn-off for most gamers.

Pros and Cons weighted, I'll allow most prestige classes. However, it is true that a good deal of archtypes can be achieved through sticking with the core stuff.

 

[The Weregamer]

Prestige Classes, while hardly mandatory, can be used to create a lot of flavor in a game, or to provide mechanical representations for things that come about through role playing and story development. If they are either planned for from character creation, or brought about through gameplay, they can create some excellent scenarios. I created a sorceror for a campaign, and from the start I told the DM that I really liked the Dragon Diciple class, gave him ways to hook it into my background, and left it in his hands. He ran with it, made it a part of the story, and had the changes come about gradually. The twist was, by the time my character began to show big physical changes (claws, teeth, etc.), he had a fiance. She was none too pleased with his new appearance, creating a whole new level of interaction. Eventually he died and was resurrected as a pure human, but it was a really fun situation to play through.

More often than not, our group creates its own PrCl's, which is usually more fun and story oriented than using the ones in the sourcebooks.

 

[DGFan]

I don't think prestige classes are necessary any more than I think wizards, clerics, or druids are necessary. They just add flavor and allow for character options that don't exist without them.

 

[Morrow]

You can get a lot of mileage out of D&D without prestige classes. I've never played one, and in fact I've only been in one game where a character had one. (A shadowdancer, if anyone's keeping score at home.) That said, I think its a great mechanic for introducing new character options to the game. I could think of several prestige classes I'd like to try out if I ever got the chance.

Mechanics aside, prestige classes have become a way for designers to say, "Have you thought of playing a character like this?" In some cases the mechanics are just a flashy wrapping to get attention for an interesting new character concept.

Morrow

 

[Gothmog]

In the games I play, no player ever wanted a prestige class, everyone just sticks to the core classes. We don't even multiclass.
I must admit the above sounds strange, but I really am not interested in most prestige classes and/or multiclassing. I do however appreciate people who play different archetypes with a core class. In my opinion core classes nearly cover any archetype.

Ditto for me and my group. In 4 years of running 3E/3.5, I have used a PrC ONCE for an NPC, and it was a homebrew one. In 4 years of playing characters (about 7 total), only ONE has had a PrC (Divine Hammer from Quint Cleric), and NONE of my characters have multiclassed. Of the 7 PCs in the long-term campaign I run, NONE have multiclassed, and only one has taken a PrC (again, another homebrew one that is part of his religious order). So I would definitely say PrCs are highly optional and them DM should carefully consider adding and PrC to his campaign. Too many players out there right now see PrCs as a way to min/max a character and trick out all their abilities, rather than something that has to be earned.

 

[Crothian]

I think prestige classes when used correctly add a lot to the game and really do a great job of expanding a character as well as part of the world.