Should Prestige Classes be more powerful than Base Classes?

[Seeker95]

Why can't base classes be played with style? And how does one enforce playing with style with the PCs.

"I'm sorry Sarah, that wasn't stylish enough so the death blow doesn't happen."

I believe you have misunderstaood me. When I say a prestige class should be a base class played with style, I mean...

A dwarven defender should not be a different class. It is a warrior that has chosen Feats and skills that make it adept at defensive fighting / bodyguard work. It is a niche in which you specialize through your Feat, skill, and other elective choices. Not a new class to multi-into.

 

[Crothian]

I believe you have misunderstaood me. When I say a prestige class should be a base class played with style, I mean...

A dwarven defender should not be a different class. It is a warrior that has chosen Feats and skills that make it adept at defensive fighting / bodyguard work. It is a niche in which you specialize through your Feat, skill, and other elective choices. Not a new class to multi-into.

I did misunderstand you. For that to happen we need more like a True 20 system that gives enough feats and options to do that.

 

[Umbran]

And yes, just like, I'm sure, the way they were originally envisaged by the 3ed designers, PrC's should be more powerful than base classes but less versatile. This appears to be surprisingly difficult to pull off, though.

Well, I count "versatitily" as a form of power. And it is difficult to do well, when the loss of versatility does not really maen a loss of function. But that is generally campaign-dependent, making class balance ultimately in the hands of the DM.

A Sorcerer is less versatile than a Wizard. If you play in a campaign that focuses on really bloody battle, though, that versatility loss is not really a loss in function.

 

[Klaus]

I don't fully agree with that notion. While I agree that some prestige classes should encourage off-the-main-road prerequisites, I don't think that "sub-optimal" ones should require the prestige class to be more powerful - after all the prestige class should be making sure those prerequisites are not "sub-optimal", by making sure they're useful to the newly entered class (to carry on your example - a PrC that requires WS:Whip likely has other abilities that bring the whip up to a near equal with a sword or bow, but it certainly shouldn't be more powerful).

That said, I strongly dislike prerequisites that are just there to limit access and are never built upon (the old Toughness for Dwarven Defender).

If the PrClass has abilities that bring the whip up to par with the sword or bow, it *is* more powerful than a base class, because no ammount of base classing could accomplish that. By more powerful, I see a class that takes a sub-optimal choice and make it as powerful as a fully-optimized choice.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

If the PrClass has abilities that bring the whip up to par with the sword or bow, it *is* more powerful than a base class, because no ammount of base classing could accomplish that. By more powerful, I see a class that takes a sub-optimal choice and make it as powerful as a fully-optimized choice.

Why do you consider this more powerful? If the whip PrC can do about 150 damage per round at level 20, and the base class can do the same damage with a sword or bow, how is it more powerful just because a base class built around swords or bows can't do that much damage with the whip?

 

[Ourph]

A PrC is best when it's AS powerful as a base-class but facilitates a character concept that is achievable by multiclassing but ends up weaker than a non-multiclassed character. Say, for example, you want to play a Paladin/Monk type character, a divinely blessed good guy who leaps off walls and floats through the air, roundhouse smites every bad guy in a 10ft radius circle then heals the little girl's injured kitten with the touch of his hand (you know, like Chuck Norris). That's a pretty cool character concept but there are a lot of missed synergies between the Paladin and Monk classes. If you're not interested in wearing big, heavy armor or using big, heavy weapons, the Paladin's armor and weapon proficiencies don't really benefit your character. If you're not interested in incorporating a mount or mount-related game mechanics into your character concept the Paladin's mount isn't really helping you. If you aren't interested in this character casting spells, the Paladin's spellcasting abilities don't interest you.

A good PrC class can take this character concept and make it happen without leaving you behind in terms of power compared to straight base-class characters or saddling your character with abilities that are extraneous and don't fit the concept. This is why I think the best PrCs are the ones that players and DMs sit down and work out themselves to fit the individual character. PrCs are a neat concept, but I think the way WotC has focused on pumping out more and more of them (most of them, IMO, pretty bland and uninspiring) is a bad implementation of the idea.

 

[Dykstrav]

In the 3E DMG, it specifically states that prestige classes should be more powerful than base classes. The reasoning being that characters are making a sacrifice by taking levels in them, so the benefits should be good enough to motivate you to delay your basic class. I haven't seen anything specifically saying this in the 3.5 DMG but the design philosophy seems to hold true.

That being said, it's been my experience that prestige classes are of limited use (especially the core prestige classes found in the DMG). They seem to only be a viable option for combat-oriented characters. Even those playing fighters think twice about giving up their bonus feats. Spellcasters rarely take prestige classes in the campaigns I've seen. Delaying your caster level is rarely worth it.

I once played in a group lacking both a cleric and a magic-user. Being the sap that I am, I decided a mystic theurge would be in order. Fills both the missing party roles, right? That experience was a real eye-opener for me. The character didn't have the hit points that a cleric did (and I couldn't wear armor because of my arcane spellcasting), so I was screwed bad when I tried to move up and heal the front-line fighter. Trying to fill two roles meant having to choose each round whether to heal my allies or blast the critters with offensive spells. My starting gold was split between buying wands of offensive spells and healing spells (with the idea of not trying to blow all my clerical spells on healing every day), so I didn't really have all that great of gear for a character of my level. And to add insult to injury, I didn't have spells approaching the power of a cleric or wizard of my level. That character died horribly that first session.

At first I thought I'd just designed the character poorly. But since then I've seen other characters follow the same general trend. I've seen a warpriest, an enlightened fist, an incantatrix, and an eldritch knight (played by others) underperform significantly because they just can't do the things a character of their base class can do. I've been sticking with the base classes since then (and not even multiclassing) and those characters are always alot more effective. Maybe it's the way we're playing the game, but I think it says something for the utility of prestige classes.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Prestige Classes should be more powerful than base classes with a significant tradeoff for the jump in power. Even with the power boost, a base-class only progression should still have the advantage over a base-class/prestige-class of equvalent level.

 

[Nifft]

Well, I count "versatitily" as a form of power.

Yeah, but I think versatility is a defensive power. It basically means you can cope with situations that you do not favor. But it's hard to compare PCs based on this, since many will find a way to simply avoid situations they don't favor, or turn them into situations that they do favor.

Specialization is how effective you are in situations that you do favor. And in this arena, we can compare one PC directly to another. Expected damage output vs. a variety of foes, saves, etc.

(At high level, a utility/mobility spellcaster is one of the most effective members of a party, because he allows the whole party to choose where & when to fight, and how the battle field will look during the fight. This multiplies the benefit of the whole party's specialization.)

Specialization wins because PCs are usually good at avoiding unfavorable conditions, or at making conditions favorable. This ability increases as they get higher level.

There is also a meta-game reason why specialization wins: it's a strong declaration of the type of game that the player wants to play. The player will feel justified in taking measures to make the game cater to his specialty.

So, IMHO flexibility is a bit of a red herring. Trading flexibility for power is something that a PC should only be allowed to do within fixed and carefully considered limits.

A Sorcerer is less versatile than a Wizard. If you play in a campaign that focuses on really bloody battle, though, that versatility loss is not really a loss in function.

Well, I'd say a Sorcerer is tactically versatile, whilst a Wizard is strategically versatile. A Sorcerer has more options during the 3rd fight (or encounter, if a buff/control/utility kinda Sorcerer) of the day, but the Wizard has more options at the beginning of the day.

Anyway. Different topic.

-- N

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think prestige classes shoule be MORE powerful, but also MORE difficult to get into and MORE costly (I dunno how, maybe an XP cost or level adjustment or something). Right now, prestige classes seem to be replacing base classes (other than needing the pre-reqs to get into the prestige classes). I think a true "prestige" class should give more but cost more.