Should Prestige Classes be more powerful than Base Classes?

[kigmatzomat]

1/ PrCs are more specialized than base classes; and
2/ Specialization wins D&D.

Better specialization is more power, at the cost of flexibility.

But flexibility is defensive or ablative rather than offensive. For example, if your sword were sundered, it's great that you could use your mace proficiently -- but if you've put all your feats and class levels into being a swordsmaster, we should look at your damage output when you are wielding a sword. The mace-wielding condition is incidental, and you will do whatever you can to reduce its occurrence.

Repeated for Truth.

IMC there's a home-brew dervish and he's a devil with his scimitars. The same goes for the ranger/deepwood sniper and his bow. Both of them become pretty much irrelevant after disarm/sunder or creatures who have really high DR against slashing or piercing, respectively.

Ironically, the dervish character's lower levels were as a TWFer with Shield Expert, which is IMO one of the most flexible builds out there since it gives him almost ultimate flexibility in weapon selection. Now he's so focused scimitars that he can't afford the weight, time delay or risk that would be required to switch to a weapon other than his 4 accessible scimitars (one magical on each hip, two adamantine on the back) and the bow on his horse.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Wouldn't that discourage players from taking prestige classes, particular ones that are related to the DM's own campaign?