Imban said:
I don't really see this as "taking away from the prestige" of prestige classes, since it makes them classes that people who are any good usually have at least one of. Wouldn't making them overtly gimped options that only the stupid take hurt their prestige more?
I don't want them gimped. I want them to be equally attractive, but more specialized versions of base classes. As is, prestige classes in general are far superior to base classes in the abilities they offer. Just my opinion of course. YMMV
Imban said:
Sure, you and every other high-level fighter might be a Frenzied Berserker, but that's just it - the prestige comes from it being what the people who are actually any good use.
I want a frenzied berserker (and every other prestige class) to be a rare or unusual style, not something every fighter/barbarian of higher than 6th level has levels in. Plus, as a DM it is more work for me to make sure every classed opponent has prestige class levels. If I do not do that and the PCs all have 2 or 3 prestige classes each, then their NPC opponents are always going to be significantly weaker than the PCs, even the BBEGs who have 2 or 3 levels on the PCs. I don't want to cut out NPCs from my campaign. I want a Ftr10 to offer the same relative challenge as a Ftr5/Occult Slayer5.
Imban said:
Having any sort of options really "waters down archetypes" since it means there are hundreds of actual, viable choices, rather than seven.
Being a wizard with levels of loremaster is much different than a wizard with levels in loremaster, divine oracle, fatespinner, archmage, and elemental savant. In the former case the wizard has focused his skills in knowledge to effectively become a new sub-set of the wizard class known as the loremaster. A wizard with five prestige classes is not a sub-set of the wizard class, it's a mutt.
Imban said:
(Of course, if you're just accusing people of taking PrCs for abilities where the flavor doesn't match, just call them on it - especially in a long-running campaign, questions like "Do you honestly think (character name) can call himself a holy warrior of (god) right now?" are perfectly valid.)
That is a good point. But I like having everything laid out in the open before the campaign begins so that I can avoid that kind of argument with a player in the first place. Let's be honest. I am not bad-mouthing players here, so please don't accuse me of that, but WotC has written the rules in such a way that most players these days assume they can do whatever they want with their PCs. To WotC's credit, I am sure they assume it is the DM's job to police the PCs and make sure things don't get out of hand. But it is far easier for me to set down restrictive guidelines at the beginning of a campaign in the form of house rules than it is for me to shoot down player options on a case-by-case basis.
