D&D 5E Pros and Cons of Kits, Prestige classes and Paragon paths. How 5e should handle it?

[Savage Wombat]

Oh, I've got nothing against high numbers. They're part of the fun.

I get annoyed when someone suggests that a particular choice that provides me with the possibility of a big number (like, say, a x3 or x4 crit weapon) is a bad choice because, in a hypothetical average series of combats against foes with statistically average ACs, the calculated damage would be 7.2% lower overall.

So, to give you an example, going to a lot of trouble to make sure that the choice to add flaming burst (3.5 style) to a weapon is mathematically balanced with the +2 you could have bought otherwise, is detrimental to the theme of the game. Getting a "cool" effect, like a flaming sword, should be slightly more powerful in terms of the raw math than the more universally straightforward numerical +2 bonus.

And, BTW, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a network of system experts that help people with game knowledge. But they can do that without creating a WoW-like culture of min-maxers who have been, quite frankly, irritating for as long as RPGs have existed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually the 4e charOp board is quite nice... I like the class books. A good overview to navigate through all those powers and a bit insight. I believe this is what this board should be about: helping to optimize a character for your tastes, not for beeing damage kings.

So, and now that this is done, back to topic please and have your personal disagreement in PMs or so...

 

[GreyICE]

Oh, I've got nothing against high numbers. They're part of the fun.

I get annoyed when someone suggests that a particular choice that provides me with the possibility of a big number (like, say, a x3 or x4 crit weapon) is a bad choice because, in a hypothetical average series of combats against foes with statistically average ACs, the calculated damage would be 7.2% lower overall.

So, to give you an example, going to a lot of trouble to make sure that the choice to add flaming burst (3.5 style) to a weapon is mathematically balanced with the +2 you could have bought otherwise, is detrimental to the theme of the game. Getting a "cool" effect, like a flaming sword, should be slightly more powerful in terms of the raw math than the more universally straightforward numerical +2 bonus.

And, BTW, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a network of system experts that help people with game knowledge. But they can do that without creating a WoW-like culture of min-maxers who have been, quite frankly, irritating for as long as RPGs have existed.

We're the same people who lobby to REMOVE all the accuracy bonuses on weapons. There's good justification in term of the world (the fighter is swinging the sword, not the magic) and more importantly it frees up other options.

Character optimizers LOVE viable options, it's our bread and butter. If there is one viable option there's no choice, and no optimization. If there's 20 viable choices, there's 20 options, and that's where we're at home.

It's not some war. We're trying to make the game better, and one of the ways is ensuring that the math doesn't cut into the cool.

 

[Li Shenron]

IIRC, Monte Cook was one of the main responsibles (perhaps the main responsible, since he signed the DMG) for the concept of prestige classes, and he mentioned that originally the idea was that every DM should have designed the PrCl for her own setting/campaign, while the DMG PrCl were supposed to be examples. Of course, since everyone thought the novelty was really cool, WotC immediately decided that PrCl should have been mass-published...

The problem then became the fact that they changed from a DM's tool to a player's tool.

As a DM's tool, they were a good way to take a story-based condition of characters (belonging to an organization, being a paragon of your race, joining a faction, training within a special group or school) into some mechanical benefit. There is NO reason why a PC cannot join the Harpers without taking one of the Harpers' PrCls, but joining the Harpers (which should strictly require some RP effort and story development) would "unlock" the option of getting into a few levels of one of those PrCls.

In the hands of the players, they were horrible... Everybody started to look at endless lists of PrCls like it was their right to get them and picked them a-la-carte, usually just to get more specialized into one narrow area, or end up with an averagely stronger character (occasionally also for the character concept, but never if doing so would result in an even slightly weaker PC).

I remain a huge fan of prestige classes, and think their main flaw is in the prerequisite system (which leads to planning your "build" from level 1 all the way up when you make your character, or at least some people do).

I absolutely agree. The PrCls prerequisite system is something that looks clever, but ultimately ends up being terribly stupid. Some requirements were necessary when the PrCl continued to develop some pre-existing ability, and that's obvious. But then the mechanical requirements (RP/story requirements should have always been more important but they didn't necessarily need to be spelled out in the books, they could have been left to the DM) should have been generally flexible... for example the original requirement for the Loremaster were fairly good because they were generic, to represent a general attitude and accomplishments in the fields of knowledge and divination. Specific feats and skills were almost always bad requirements, unreasonably restricting access to the PrCl to some characters but at the same time also allowing very convenient "builds" for others. Players ended up evaluating a PrCl only in terms of "balance", i.e. whether the total crunchy benefits outweighted the total costs.

Also, PrCls prerequisites system suffered from one of the most appalling meta-designing problem IMHO. Someone thought it was clever to avoid using explicit level as a prerequisites, "because access to a PrCl should not be forbidden to characters of any classe". So instead of level, they used shortcuts like requiring a feature that was available only to the core class (at a certain level) for which a PrCl was meant for, such as "at least two favoured enemies" (instead of just saying Ranger lv 5) or "sneak attack 3d6" (instead of just Rogue lv 5).

This seems clever, because it leaves the door open for other classes in non-core supplements. The problem is, you never know what the hell of classes those supplements will have, so you can in fact end up with players finding a way to get those prerequisites earlier than lv 5.

The problem (again) is that if PrCl had been left as a tool in the hands of the DMs, it would have been a piece of cake for a DM to handle a non-core PC with her own judgement: Bob is playing a Scout instead of a core Ranger? I just overrule the prerequisite from Ranger 5 to Scout 5 for him and I know it's a safe choice. But as soon as PrCl became player's ground, with the players feeling entitled to get a PrCl because they paid for the book and they meet the written prerequisites, and are in fact exploiting the crunch of PrCl as much as possible, a DM does not change the prerequisites anymore to avoid even more exploitation.

In all seriousness ~75% of the kits and prestige classes were cover ups for the flaws of the system.

Another truth... Personally I would have rather left the flaws.

 

[Lwaxy]

I loved the kits, I like the prestige classes, the archetypes from PF and a lot of the 3rd party ideas. What 5e would really need is a way for the GM and players to make up their own mind which to use without running into issues with breaking anything.

But those options should be mainly about flavor, not optimizing.

 

[BobTheNob]

It's not some war. We're trying to make the game better, and one of the ways is ensuring that the math doesn't cut into the cool.

Yea, I have alot to thank Min/Maxers for. They helped me better understand exactly what I dont want 5e to evolve into. Im very thankful to them for that.

Edit (Just clarifying The above. It sounds a bit nasty and I dont mean it to be) : I was once putting together a SwordMage for an upcoming change of DM's (which never happened...sigh). I was curious as o "what was best". So I visited a CharOp Board. I read through the pages, drilled down on the feats, read which synergies to take and why, what my stats had to be ... and stopped.

I realized what I was doing. This is what contributed to my cancelling my Wow account. The obsession with the hyper-optomized character over just play whatever the hell you enjoy. This is D&D...its enjoyable because of taking on a personna, and I wasnt doing that...I was taking someone else'. I had forgotten what was important, put someone elses character on a piece of paper. There was no "Me" in it, no real character. Sure, it was mechanically effective, but it was soulless.

The funny thing was, I had to go to the CharOp boards to figure this out for myself, and so yes, the experience sorta helped me "hit rock bottom" so I could reflect and turn it around.

The really did help me understand exactly why I want 5e design to be mechanic light/fluff heavy, because thats the sort of game I enjoy. Ive grown out of hyper-configurable character mechanics, Im just over them.

So yea, I am thankful to the CharOp boards.

 

[groklynn]

If you haven't seen Legend from Rule of Cool - check it out. I think they have a really clean and simple approach for multiclassing/kit. Class itself contains different tracks of powers, and you have three of them. Some classes have options in choice of these tracks, and multiclass is done by replacing one track of your basic class with a new track. And their "paragon" or whatever idea has an idea of adding fourth track by joining the guild instead of getting extra magic items (better read it by yourself, it's free at the moment). It's a very basic mechanics, but it could work. Your class = hp/level, all the proficiencies and feats/skills, but it's defined with your special abilities, your powers and your role in battle also.
So if you want to multiclass you need to sacrifice some of your class abilities or even whole type of abilities to gain them from other class (exchange), e.g. for fighters who multiclass with mages it could be armor and shield proficiency, and mage/rogue could loose something else , and if you want a "kit" you need to sacrifice something else (not your abilities) to add new set of abilities, e.g. have a kit signature ring, that require a slot and couldn't be removed, or bracers or else. or you may have some restrictions.
cause all these prerequisites provoke optimization and different sorts of "cheating" by searching holes and gaps in rulebooks and nothing more; it's kinda metagaming, nothing to have with mechanics of life itself (you can't "be good and getting only better", in ad&d it was an aging effect if you remember, that explained your age periods, and by ideology and logic of 4e your way have an only option and direction - straight to demigod epic without penalties and restrictions)
so prerequisites and prestige/paragons (and multi-classes too) in a way we have 'em at the moment are part of a very pro-gamist way to handle a simple goal - some special tricks in your sleeve to stand out of the crowd of "simple" fighters and mages. It should be easier, without prerequisites (equal planning/optimizing) and with penalties instead of prerequisites (e.g. rings/brasers/masks/gloves/face tatoos or else as "shackles" or any other way to balance the power of additional kit) and multi-classing need a similar treatment, granting both bonuses and restrictions (have you ever thought of fighter who "takes level" in mage class and learns all the science on the road?! why?! how?!?! but add some kind of artifact/trigger/penalty, e.g. some cursed spellbook, or else, and you could balance this strange decision of a simple martial warrior to learn a really difficult "art" of spellcasting)

 

[avin]

I'm of the opinion that Themes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies should truly be mainly flavor with just a little bit of mechanics.

Absolutely, it should be based more on crunch and less on fluff. As somebody else said what's worst than sleeping in a cave as a class and woking up with a prestige class attached?

I remain a huge fan of prestige classes, and think their main flaw is in the prerequisite system (which leads to planning your "build" from level 1 all the way up when you make your character, or at least some people do).

Agreed. It should start at level 1 and avoid the "sleeping at cave" problem I just mentioned.

I liked kits for the most part. I thought there was some really uneven design, though.

It has been a long time since the last time I've used a kit, but it my impression as well. They were uneven.

I think the themes from Dark Sun 4e (and possibly elsewhere?) were possibly my favorite handling of this mechanic. They were there from level 1, representing something that is true about the character, rather than a goal, or the idea that the character isn't "complete" until they get to level 6 or 7 or 11 or whatever.

That solves the "cavern" problem...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with character optimization. I would rather play a game with optimizers than one where people think the game can only be played 1 way.

While I'm in for optimization, Charops is the place you go when you want to play 1 way... people just look for the best build and use it.

But those options should be mainly about flavor, not optimizing.

Again, ^^.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I read the post you based this response on and I didnt get the impression he was saying the game could be played one way at all, in fact whta he said was that he wanted "organic". Actually sounds like a rather noble goal IMO.

Pretty rough response there.

When someone suggests that charop boards should be burned to the ground, it's a pretty rough initial post.

While I'm in for optimization, Charops is the place you go when you want to play 1 way... people just look for the best build and use it.

I go there to find options. While I may have 95% of all the WotC 3.5 books, I don't have hours to go through all of them and find what I need for a certain character. Sometimes I use them to figure out if I'm overreacting to the perceived power of a prestige class or spell a player has / wants. If the CharOp boards haven't found it to be top notch and used in a lot of builds, odds are decent it's not that bad.

The two characters I run currently are a Dwarven Radiant Servant of Saranrae and a Rogue 6/Fighter 2/Spell Thief 1, by no means optimized. It is, however, fun to see what feats / equipment would go well with a fighter / rogue type who wants to dish out a little more damage, and the best advice for such things can be found at the optimization board.

 

[Andor]

My take on it.

Kits seem to be the closest thing to the themes. I like kits, they provide both crunchy customization and cultural tie-ins in a single package. More importantly they show where you are from, who you are at the start of your career. A peasant hero, samurai, and a retired cavalry officer may all be fighters who like long swords but they are much more distinct with kits/themes to portray their origins and training.

Prestige classes were brilliant but suffered from mission creep and poor design. They tried to do too many things. They were cultural or organizational tie-ins. They were hyper-specializations of, divergent paths from or mixes of bases classes. They were classes too powerful to be taken at first level. They were ways to mix newly released power systems (shadow magic, incarnum) into existing classes.

It's too much for any one system to accomplish. It also suffered from some terrible design ideas like sub-par feat taxes as a cost of entry to a powerful class.

Paragon paths were a fix to many of these problems but had their own issues as others have noted.

But I think themes are not a replacement for prestige classes/paragon paths. Themes/kits are where you came from, prestige classes are where you are going.

But I think prestige classes need to be split into two separate systems. One is 3e style prestige classes. These represent alternate class paths, they can be hyper-specializations, they can be new systems. They should not be a base class turned up to eleven. They should not fill in system gaps that would better be done with a new base class. Entry requirements should not require 6 levels of preplanning, or self-gimping.

The other should be a faction membership system. Ways of tracking favor with a cause or organization with minor mechanical benefits. I seem to recall such a system from 3e, but not where it was from. PHB 2? At any rate these should NOT have generic instances. They can be mentioned in the PHB. The DMG should not provide examples (unless there is a default setting and then they should be strongly tied to that setting) but instead a 'how to build one' guide. They are instead packaged with setting books and adventures.

Just my 2 cents.