Prestige Classes: What exactly are they?

[johnsemlak]

My understanding of PrC's (based on Monte Cook's definition in the DMG) is that PrC's are primarily a tool for world-building. Most published PrC's seem to fit this role.

However, many published PrCs, especially those in splatbooks, seem to be mere specializations of core classes. EG thief acrobat, most forms of the assassin PrC, True necromancer. Often, such PrCs, while interesting and the kind of thing I want to use IMC, seem rather generic.

My understanding is that in creating PrC's we should not merely be creating specialists, they should be elite groups of heroes that exist in a campaign world.

Any comments?

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Often, such PrCs, while interested and the kind of thing I want to use IMC, seem rather generic.

I consider such PrC's as perfect. They are tools for me to put a story to in my campeign.

It is the PrC's with a story already attached that I run into difficulty with finding a way to incorporate into my worlds.

SD

 

[KnowTheToe]

I consider all PrC's a validation of the failure of the character creation and levelling of 3e. Instead of creating an open ended class system, they went with strict not customizable classes that don't meet people's needs and therefore had to create PrCs.
[end of rant]

Although the way they did classes does make game balance easier to manage.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

My understanding is that in creating PrC's we should not merely be creating specialists, they should be elite groups of heroes that exist in a campaign world.

That's interesting. I look at the 'specialist' PrC's as good examples because they give a character a tight definition and role in the story. You know exactly where you stand with them.

It's the PrC's that are so vaguely defined, like the Weapon Master, that I don't like. To me, that PrC (to take an example) is so vague that it adds almost nothing to a character. It's just some abilities with no pay off.

A good PrC should have a large RP part to it. You should have to work hard to get it, and there should be some sort of pay-off with it so that taking the PrC becomes a decision, rather than simply "Hey! I get to blast people 1/day with Divine Fire!".

Just my strand of the web.

 

[haiiro]

I don't see anything wrong with using PrCs to represent specialist characters as well as setting-specific characters. The more "generic" PrCs leave room for the player to develop his own idea of that class's role in the world, while also giving the DM an opportunity to define a world-specific role for those classes (if she so desires). In many respects I prefer the generic PrCs, because they are easily adaptible to my setting/campaign of choice.

I'd rather have generic/specialist PrCs in the universal splatbooks (Sword & Fist, for example) and let the more campaign-specific splatbooks (Magic of Faerun, for example) handle PrCs that are developed as a world building element.

That said, I'll never turn down an interesting idea, regardless of how setting-specific it might be.

 

[Ron]

My understanding is that Prestige Classes are a device to allow WotC (and other d20 companies) to sell more magazines and splat books. If they were a primary tool for world-building, the DMG would offer rules to create them, allowing the DMs to customise PrC to their campaigns. As this particulary important information was not included, I can only think that they intended only to open a breach in which they could plug countless suplements.

It is not that I dislike the concept of Prestige Classes, but I think they were poorly implemented.

 

[maddman75]

Prestige classes fill four important roles

- Development of the campaign world, as Monte said. This is the 'ideal' function, but not always the real.

- Specialization. Classes like the Cavalier, Thief-acrobat, etc. They allow players to give up some aspects to emphasize on others.

- Strengthening a weak concept. The MC system leaves some holes, certain combinations that while interesting aren't strong mechanically. This is where things like the Spellsword or Arcane Trickster to come into play.

- Something to put into splatbooks. I don't think this is a bad thing. Modular design allows other products and lines to come out with pieces that fit right into the existing rules, rather than doing a tack-on (this was what made 2e buckle under its own weight.

It depends on the campaign which you use. For a carefully crafted homebrew, #1 is best used. For a published setting, #4 is very important. For just H&S, beer and pretzels D&D, #2 comes into play. And #3 is important for any of these.

 

[Umbran]

My understanding is that in creating PrC's we should not merely be creating specialists, they should be elite groups of heroes that exist in a campaign world.

First off, they need not be an elite group of heroes. Elite characters, yes. But they can be heroic, villainous, or what have you.

Next, there's nothing to say that soemthing which is mechanically generic - like a specialization of a core class - cannot also be something world-building. If they were published with lots of world-specific material woven into them, you'd find it much harder to put it in your own game. If they are more generic, you can attach your own world-specific stuff.

True Necromancers, for example. Mechanically, it's the extension of a core class concept, yes. But that doesn't mean they aren't a special, deeply political and interesting group in your own world. Similar for Cavaliers. So, they become a specific knightly order...

 

[Oni]

I don't see why they can't fill both of those roles.


As for the more specilized type, that doesn't really have to be a PrC, but people seem less antsy about adding new PrC's to their game instead of adding new base classes.

 

[Crothian]

Prestige classes serve the purpose for allowing players and characters to look forward to at higher levels.

Lots of negative reaction to them in this thread though