Anyone else getting tired of prestige classes?

[D+1]

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.

But that's sorta the whole point of PrC's. Or at least *I* thought it was. They aren't just a matter of simply gaining more skills but of gaining skills that not just anyone can. There's prestige in being able to do something more exclusive, even if it costs you a bit to be able to qualify.

The 3E DMG has more to say on just what PrC's are and how they're supposed to be used than the 3.5 DMG but they don't really disagree. They agree that they are entirely optional, directly under the purview of the DM, and that the DM should keep the PrC's he does allow to a limited number. PrC's are a tool for world building, as well as a reward for achieving higher levels. They are meant to be associated with a particular culture or organization. And above all they are SUPPOSED to be campaign-specific, even going so far as to state that the best PrC's are going to be the ones that the DM designs personally, making his world unique.

It's a grand idea, but if you were to look at them only through the piles of them being published by EVERYONE you'd have a much different perception. You'd think they were a PLAYERS tool rather than a DM's. That most of the time the purpose of a PrC was to simply provide a power boost to a PC and that only occasionally was roleplaying or properly fitting into a campaign world any kind of consideration.

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 think "obscure" and "stupid" are subjective criteria, but that entrance requirements SHOULD emphasize aspects of the campaign world as much as mere mechanics.

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.

Since you are otherwise giving up progression in your regular class there SHOULD be noticeable benefits.

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

So which do you hate more - the ones that give lots o benefits, or the ones that give none at all? In any case this is the point being made in general - it doesn't really matter so much how it balances what you give up, what it costs to get in, and what you get after you get in, what matters more is how the PrC itself fits into the world.

I hate DM's who say "but that class doesn't fit your character concept".

Any DM who does say that is not just off-base - he's over the line. It is NOT his business what your character "concept" is or how true you are to it - much less HIS vision of what your concept is or should be. Unless their "concept" is going to pointlessly clash with his campaign world players can tell him to butt out.

 

[DragonLancer]

Any DM who does say that is not just off-base - he's over the line. It is NOT his business what your character "concept" is or how true you are to it - much less HIS vision of what your concept is or should be.

I disagree with this assessment to a small extent. The DM has full authority to deny a character taking a PrC if there is sufficient reason to say that the character has not worked towards it IC or that it does not fit the concept that the player seems to be playing. Obviously such is up to the DM and player in question to discuss out before hand. But ultimately it is up to the DM to say yes or no, whether it be PrC or core class.

 

[D+1]

double post (first ever!)

 

[D+1]

I disagree with this assessment to a small extent. The DM has full authority to deny a character taking a PrC if there is sufficient reason to say that the character has not worked towards it IC or that it does not fit the concept that the player seems to be playing. Obviously such is up to the DM and player in question to discuss out before hand. But ultimately it is up to the DM to say yes or no, whether it be PrC or core class.

But that's different. That's just ruling whether or not your PC meets the requirements for the PrC. What he was talking about was the DM denying the PrC to the player because the DM doesn't think it "fits the concept for the character". If the character qualifies, both mechanically and roleplaying-wise, the DM has no business denying it to the character simply because the *DM* has a different idea of where the character should go. That is NOT the DM's perogative. It's strictly the players'.

If the FooFoo Bunny Master prestige class has no racial requirement then it's irrelevant whether the DM thinks Gork the half-orc barbarian ought to take it or not.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Given that I've taken a prestige class exactly once (Archmage from the DMG), I don't see them as necessary. I agree with a post Henry made on another thread: there are so many options just using base classes and races, I don't need PrC's which, too often, are badly thought-out and unbalanced to boot.

 

[scourger]

no PrCs

I don't use them. I do not allow them when I DM. Not even the ones in the DMG. Even when the list was much shorter in the 3e DMG. My players can and do effect any character concept they want through the flexible classes, skills and feats presented in the PH.

I've never played one. I just don't see the point. I can make just about any kind of character I want to play from the PH.

I'm not saying I wouldn't use them, I just haven't done so. I don't see any reason to do so.

 

[Saeviomagy]

But that's sorta the whole point of PrC's. Or at least *I* thought it was. ... ... You'd think they were a PLAYERS tool rather than a DM's. That most of the time the purpose of a PrC was to simply provide a power boost to a PC and that only occasionally was roleplaying or properly fitting into a campaign world any kind of consideration.

I think I have more of an issue with making the character himself fit into the world, rather than making a PrC fit into the world.

I want PrC's which let me make an interesting character concept work.

If a character seems to fit into the mould for a secret society (or non-secret, whatever), then the secret society may (or may not, depending on the current status of the campaign) contact him.

Whether or not he joins them shouldn't have an impact on his abilities - he either fits the mould of the organisation or he doesn't, it's goals either mesh with his, or they don't. This isn't AD&D - training is not necessary.

The flipside is that I shouldn't require a specific set of feats and abilities to join an organisation - how on earth do the drunken masters know that I don't have great fortitude if I'm a dwarf with 20 con, and have twice the fort save of any one of them?

I think "obscure" and "stupid" are subjective criteria, but that entrance requirements SHOULD emphasize aspects of the campaign world as much as mere mechanics.

An example - the red wizard class requires (iirc) tattoo focus. Why? Because the red wizards of thay all have tattoos. The tattoo and ritual magic aren't really thematically linked.

Entrance requirements should fulfil two purposes
1. represent the necessary level of study and ability within an area required for the abilities of the class (example - proficiency with armour or weapons, any abilities or feats that the class builds upon, a minimum bonus to a skill or stat, any physical qualities which are essential - a hulking hurler or war hulk for instance doesn't really NEED to be large - he should have a minimum lift requirement, making large species fit easier, but allowing exceptional individuals qualify. A bladesinger doesn't NEED to be an elf - there is no call for it at all beyond tradition)
2. Force a minimum level in classes to qualify for powers that match the capabilities of PC's at that level. ie - a class which does 10d6 damage with an ability should only grant that ability at at least 10th level (equal to a wizard with a 10d6 fireball). Classes blending spellcasting and other abilities should force a minimum amount of lost spellcasting levels. etc.

Feats like endurance, toughness, great fortitude, weapon focus, spell focus, or qualifications like "the wizard must specialise", racial requirements like "elf only" and the like should not be requirements for any PrC. The qualities granted by any of these abilities is not really measureable by a character in the game world. The only way to pick a specialist wizard (for instance) from a wizard with superior intelligence, or extra slot feats is that the specialist can't cast a school of spells. Which doesn't seem to me like it's a worthy qualification. The difference between a human with the great fortitude feat and a dwarf is 1 point of fortitude save modifier. Against poisons and spells however, the dwarf comes out ahead. Is there a noticeable difference between someone with dodge and someone with 2 points more dex?

Toughness? Don't make me laugh.

Since you are otherwise giving up progression in your regular class there SHOULD be noticeable benefits.

Any class which gives full spellcasting progression, two good saves, d8 hitpoints, mid-range bab and undead turning and then some extra is a dead cert for anyone who's currently a cleric. Hell, even ones which drop undead turning are typically a really good deal. And almost all the cleric-targeted PrC's seem to go down this route. In contrast all the classes for other spellcasters tend to have some serious hits in them.

So which do you hate more - the ones that give lots o benefits, or the ones that give none at all? In any case this is the point being made in general - it doesn't really matter so much how it balances what you give up, what it costs to get in, and what you get after you get in, what matters more is how the PrC itself fits into the world.

Yes, but the primary function of the PrC is to back up roleplaying with mechanics. It doesn't provide the roleplaying, or even much of a structure for that roleplaying. In fact the ability to say "I take a level of guild thief, and now I have a guild backing me up" does the exact opposite of promoting roleplaying.

The PrC provides the mechanics, and only the mechanics. And a good mechanic is a balanced mechanic that has a genuine need within the system.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I disagree with this assessment to a small extent. The DM has full authority to deny a character taking a PrC if there is sufficient reason to say that the character has not worked towards it IC or that it does not fit the concept that the player seems to be playing. Obviously such is up to the DM and player in question to discuss out before hand. But ultimately it is up to the DM to say yes or no, whether it be PrC or core class.

He may have authority, but he's a git if he denies a PrC on the basis of it not matching his preconceptions of a character.

I mean - how on earth do I show a predisposition towards abilities that I cannot do without the PrC? For a lot of things, the player IS the character. Class selection is one of those things. If the player wants a class, then the character wants it. Saying it doesn't fit your 'vision' of the character when you are not it's creator is akin to declaring that all fan-fiction is canon.

 

[hong]

 

[Olive]

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.

But who's going to train you? Why should you be able to say 'oohh I want the lost magic of Azul-Ka', without being trained in those secrets by the Initiates of the Ebon Ding-Dong?