Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 977151" data-attributes="member: 3051">One thing many of these PrC design treatises gloss over is that there are two basic, conflicting design philosophies, and the DM should be sure to know which one he prefers.OPTION 1: Up-Front CostRequire some hefty requirements, including "useless" Feats like Skill Focus or Toughness.  Force characters to either multiclass or buy cross-class ranks.  Require a large number of skill ranks in a skill the character doesn't really want.But then, give them a class that's more powerful than the original.  For spellcasters, that usually means "+1 spellcasting level" at every level, plus extra bonus abilities.  Level by level, the PrC would give more abilities than the class it replaces, to make up for both the "lost" abilities required to enter the class and the "opportunity cost" abilities the person would have received by remaining in his old class.One key element of these classes is that you should always go all (5 or 10) levels, because you're "paying off" a debt.  Once you're in the class, there's no reason to ever go back to the old one.(Downside: if you allow a lot of PrCs into a campaign, it's easy to qualify for several with the same set of prerequisites, which means you can get even more benefits out of your "sacrifice".)Examples: Archmage, Loremaster, Arcane Trickster?OPTION 2: Ongoing CostHave fairly easy requirements, the sort of thing someone who intended to follow that path would already WANT to take.  Instead of requiring Skill Focus, just require ranks of the skill.  Instead of Spell Focus, require certain high-level spells.  (One side effect of this weakening of prerequisites is that it's easier to let more classes qualify)But then, have the class be only as powerful as the class it supercedes, on a level-by-level basis.  If you want to give a spellcaster extra abilities, be ready to sacrifice some levels of spellcasting.  If you want to make a Rogue-like class, don't let them continue to get full Sneak Attack progression and 8+INT skill points.The idea is specialization, sacrificing abilities the player might not want for increasing the ones he does.  If you have a Paladin-based PrC, maybe they sacrifice Mount advancement to get more spells, or vice versa.  You're not any more "powerful" than a stock Paladin, overall, but to the player it's a more desirable progression.Unlike the earlier category, you don't NEED to go the full path.  Alternate levels of this class with levels of your old one, if you want.  Mix a few PrCs together to get something you want.Examples: Arcane Archer, Assassin?Anyway, the advice given in Monte's thread really leans towards that first category.  Require things the player doesn't really want, give better abilities than the core class gives, and put the best stuff at the very end of the class.I'm not saying that's not a valid way to design a class.  Personally, though, I design more towards the second group.  I don't think this conversation should ever occur:"I'll take Skill Focus as my Feat.""Why?""Because the Prestige Class I want requires it."Characters are supposed to choose skills and Feats that fit their concept naturally, not take them solely for metagame reasons like that.  At least that's my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification