Anyone else getting tired of prestige classes?

[ForceUser]

I'm tired of taking a prestige class just for the sake of having one. There's no rule that says you have to take one, but you couldn't have told me that in 2001 or 2002. These days neither of my characters have or intend to enter a PrC, and I won't take another one in the future unless it's part of some solid concept I want to explore through roleplay. I will agree that the deluge of PrCs is beginning to get tiresome, but that's mostly because I have always felt that a PrC should be something that is germane to your campaign setting. Generic PrCs simply bore me. A PrC should really be a collaberation between a player & a DM to enhance the storytelling aspect of a campaign.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's why I prefer prestige classes that have a "special" requirement in their prerequesites, one that can only be fulfilled through roleplaying, and not through stats.

 

[BryonD]

More Prestige Classes please.

 

[RangerWickett]

I love Prestige Classes that have campaign flavor. Now, I admit that I made dozens of 'em back before 2002, but I've only published a handful. Two in Wild Spellcraft that I felt were legitimate because they had very unique powers. A couple of prestige/advanced classes in Four-Color to Fantasy that were very generic, but advanced classes tend to be generic. Two gypsy prestige classes in the first ENWorld Player's Journal that were flavor-heavy.

For my own campaign, I actually haven't made any prestige classes for a couple of years, and I don't like most of the old ones I made. I try to only make organization-based prestige classes nowadays, or at least ones heavily tied to culture. Heck, most of the classes I would make would be spellcasting ones to handle weird spellcasting methods, and I dealt with that concern by writing Elements of Magic - Revised. Barely even need prestige classes anymore.

The only prestige class people have taken in my game lately is Shadowdancer. Guess how many levels they wanted. Hmph. I oughta just make Shadowdancer a feat, for all the good the actual class gives me.

Likewise, I hate assassins since I loath instant kill effects. Arcane archers and dwarven defenders are fine but need a flavor injection. Horizon Walkers are groovy; I wish rangers were more like them and didn't have the silly weapon style thing. Blackguards could be handled just fine if they'd loosened the rules for paladins a bit; they don't deserve to be a prestige class -- at most they ought to be a paragraph describing how to make an alternate evil paladin core class.

Most of the rest of the prestige classes in the DMG I see as just a weakness of the core magic system.

The best prestige classes I can remember are some of the Forgotten Realms one that have heavy setting-dependency (and nice art), and some of the ones way back when from the Living Greyhawk Journal. Oh, and the Star Wars ones were pretty nice.

In my setting, the prestige classes I want to make are:

* Wayfarer Cirqueliste -- Imagine Cirque de Soleil if they could teleport.

* Elemental Guardian -- An order with two mages each devoted to the four classical Greek elements, skilled at managing the world's connections with the elemental planes.

* Genja Kesh -- A dark Elf group of assassins who produce poison in their bloodstream, and who learn powers related to shadow.

* Paladin of the Aquiline Cross -- Knights pledged to protect the secret of immortality.

* Sole Palancis -- Elite Elvish warriors trained to use high-magic fighting styles in small-scale military units.

Most of the rest of the stuff I'd want to do, I could handle with feats, and with changing the core classes a bit to be just a little more flexible. Like lightly-armored fighters, chaotic monks, etc.

 

[Arken]

I agree that Prestige Classes are getting overdone. Though my philosophy on PrCs seems to be different to most people.

I feel that most PCs should take a PrC, generally around 9th level, sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

I feel that PrCs should be slightly more powerful than the base classes.

I feel that the base classes are there so GMs don't need to go insane remembering all of the alternate stuff.

I feel that the PrC that a PC takes should be written by the player of the PC, and then approved by the GM. The wide variety of PrCs out there means they have a lot of inspiration to draw from.

If you are going to commit hours and hours and hours of game time to a character, why not spend some time making it unique with a PrC that you have modded? As long as the GM does not approve something ridiculous; though it can be a good way of addressing party balance.

What I mean by this is often you get one character who is much better off than another (better stats; better hp; they took things that suit the campaign more than the others) and the players of the other characters feel left behind. Giving them a slightly more powerful PrC can address this balance, allowing the GM to up the difficulty of the encounters, without necessarilly giving more XP; and the players have, and meet, a lot more variety.

Richard Canning

I completely agree, I like to use prestige classes to give a character the same specificity of personality in combat as they have in character interaction and 'roleplaying'. In my game I would much rather that a wizard that specialised in summoning winged creatures from the far realms specifically had mechanics that set him apart from every other wizard (and even every other alienist) - by doing this the unique character that the player creates is unique not only in the way they are played. The PrC just acts as an emphasis and a confirmation of the character concept aimed for. For this reason I only ever use the mechanics of a class in question and overlay a background or reasoning for the abilities that is specific to the character.
For example the red wizard (of Thay). The class abilities do not demand that the DM only use the class for teh specific original use that the class served in the FR. If I had a lawful good character that had a background and story line which could be represented by the red wizard then they can take the red wizard. Doing so would not mean that they had a direct campaign link (like an organisation etc) with every other character in the world/campaign that also happened to have the abilites of a red wizard as those abilities might represent something else entirely for someone else.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I think that if you don't decide which PRCs you allow in your campaign and which you don't then you can have alot of problems with players whinning and moaning about not be able to become some PRC that doesn't fit your game at all.

What really pisses me off are core classes that seem like they should be PRCs (either that or the PRCs should be core classes).

There are too many PRCs though and they are used as filler way too much.

 

[borc killer]

Yup - that is the problem I see with many products - uninspiring, bland pablum. It is especially awful to see them take a campaign-specific prestige class and turn it into a generic one (i.e. Purple Dragon Knight, Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, Red Wizard of Thay, etc.) I feel that a prestige class should never be used to represent a set of abilities - it should be used to represent a special, specific set of organizational or racial attributes: "Red Wizard of Thay" good, "Red Wizard" bad. A player should never be allowed to just "take" levels in a prestige class. There should be requirements beyond the mechanical ones of level, pre-requisite feats, etc.

The problem is not with the PrC the problem is with DMs letting people just "take" them. It is up to the DM to make the PrC fit the campaign... not up to some game designer that has no idea what gods or organizations you have running around in your home brew world. They are options just like most of the other stuff in 3.X... people really need to see it as that.

Options are good. They let those of us that like to run in-depth campaigns have a starting point to which we add the specifics. If you don’t add specifics in your world don’t blame anyone else but yourself.

Borc Killer

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think PrC's for flavour suck. I think if I want to have certain abilities, then I should be able to train and study for them without having to (say) be an elf. Or a member of a secret society. I mean sure - maybe if I DO become a master of the style of drunken fighting, then other masters of the same style may seek me out and ask me to join their illustrious organisation, but I don't think that I should have to join first and get the skills second.

I think that pure mechanic based PrC's are a good thing, but I think that ones which emulate pre-existing class combinations are silly. I like the red wizard (as the only way of being a group spellcaster). I like a lot of the complete warrior PrC's.

I think the multiclass prc's (mystic theurge, eldritch knight etc) are necessary without some sort of caster-level overhaul, which isn't going to happen in the core rules for some time.

I think having obscure and stupid entrance requirements for PrC's - trying to balance out the advantages with an entrance 'cost' - is a losing tactic. I like costs based on caster level, BaB, base fort saves and skill ranks in relevant skills. I hate costs based on specific feats (especially if they're for obvious things. Who'd have guessed that the exotic weapon master would want to be able to use his exotic weapon??).

I hate PrC's that give something for nothing. The worst offenders are cleric PrC's - typically you give up nothing, get full caster progression, and replace all that dead space on your list with lots 'o' benefits.

I hate PrC's that give nothing, even if the entrance cost is nothing.

I hate DM's who say "but that class doesn't fit your character concept". Well, genius - if it doesn't fit my concept, I'll never use the abilities, will I? So why would I take it? What do I gain out of it? Is it an ability that I'll use? Then it's part of the concept, isn't it?

 

[DragonLancer]

In my view, prestige classes are meant to be specific to the setting that you use. In the 3.0 DMG the classes there were pretty much given as examples originally. Now though, PrC's have become a player resource like feats and equipment, rather than being tied to a specific setting.
Also, the point of multi-classing between core classes is to get the best of both worlds but you also lose something from it, whether it be feats, BAB or spells. Too many PrC's these days seem built to compensate that, when theres no need.

So, count me in the group that says there are too many many, and that they should be put back in DM's books not players.

 

[Psion]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

PrC's are a great, very useful concept to help the GM shape the game, and help the players better realize a concept when done properly.

Some publishers, however, don't do the greatest job with them. I see that as the fault of said publisher, not PrCs themselves.