Anyone else getting tired of prestige classes?

[Psion]

I'm wondering: do you prestige class grousers have the same problem with monsters? There are lots of books out there that are Wall-to-Wall monsters.

AFAIAC, prestige classes are at least as useful as monsters. Many fantasy plots revolve around interesting abilities and behaviors. That's what monsters give you. And that's what prestige classes give you. But for me, I prefer to fold many of my plots into human cultures and societies, so that makes monsters a bit less useful, leaving PrCs as a major mechanism for different method to inject some fantasy style challenges in a game.

Magic does this too, but nobody seems to complain about magic books, either.

 

[Steverooo]

What this tells me (me me me; others doubtless will argue) is that special perks/abilties acquired by level advancement would be better represented as individual units to be picked up or "purchased" in some other way, for the ultimate flexibility that players are seeking. "Prestige" titles can be affixed to individual tastes.

Exactly! (It's not just you, either!)

 

[Steverooo]

I'm wondering: do you prestige class grousers have the same problem with monsters? There are lots of books out there that are Wall-to-Wall monsters.

No, but then I don't see most monsters as a mistake!

 

[Umbran]

And how much fluff came with complete warrior again? How many chapters that covered fighters in society etc?

The fighter's (or anyone else's) role in society is highly world and culture specirfic. The role fo a fighter in psuedo-feudal Japan isn't the role of a fighter in pseudo-feudal Europe, and that isn't the role of a fighter in FR...

As a GM, I don't need some outside party telling my players what their roles in society are supposed to be. Unless it is part of a campaign setting, the author knows diddly about the society I'm running, and therefore has little input.

There was a time when your character was someone rather than a collection of rules and numbers.

There was a time when we could figure out the stuff that wasn't rules and numbers without having a book tell us how to do it.

That's the voguish d20 thinking, but hardly the only way a supplement can be.

I don't see it as voguish. I think it is finally having a better idea of who is buying what, and how the market works, and what sells.

You can get across a great deal of rules-information across in a small space. Therefore, in a given book, you can fit a large number of rules-options, and a given buyer can discard many things and still find the book useful. Role-play, societal information, and the like take a great deal more verbiage to put across well to a reader. That means fewer different options per page, and if the buyer doesn't part of the product, he throws out a relatively larger portion of the work.

Also, take note - just as power-gaming and role-playing aren't strongly linked skills, designing good rules and teaching good role-playing are not strongly related. A great many people can crunch numbers and make up a table to display a PrC. Teaching role-play by anything other than example is difficult, and very few authors are up to the task.

 

[Olive]

Also, "Prestige Classes" just aren't prestigious. Back in the 1e days, becoming a Knight of the Hart WAS prestigious, because you had to EARN it (the old-fashioned way!)! Nowadays, you have to start preparing at level one (or wait much longer than necessary), and the King can't simply award it to you for "Service to the Crown", because you don't have "the right Feats" and four Ranks of Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty), or whatever!

This is absurd. A king can award membership to whatever organisation you like. A PrC represents training that can be awarded by the organisation, not a requirement for entry. you've got it mixed up. Show me one place where the core rules say 'membership in an organisation can only be gained by taking an appropriate PrC. Roleplaying is not allowed.' They don't. PrCs are about encouraging roleplaying? Do you want the mighty abilities of the Wizards of the Lost Pool? gain admission to their ranks! Role play it!!!

I swear, maybe it was a bad name choice, but the way people talk about PrCs you wouldn't realise that they were a flexible interesting way to create difference in a game system and roleplaying opportunities. They fill a whole range of roles:

1) things that core classes can't do. These are the PrCs designed to facilitate multi-classing, or fill a niche that the core classes don't do well, ie Mystic Thurge and Duelist. IMO, this is a much better solution than changing the multiclassing system. A subset of these is the archetype such as the cavalier. You can play a good horse born fighter with core classes, but if you want to specialise in that, then take the cavalier PrC. You'll be great at fighting on horse back, but not so good at other stuff. The guild thief PrC is another good example of this. It's not that you need to take a PrC to be in a guild, but the PrC lets you specialise in a particular role.

2) Cool organisations and lost power. I don't want an alienist core class. I love the PrC however. Players and their characters should be developing towards a role, gaining as they progress. PrCs represent that well, much better than core classes. My other favourite RPG, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, has advanced classes that represent this. when I first say PrCs, I didn't think about the name, I thought about those. I never heard anyone complain about advanced classes in WHFRP.

There are several issues that people have with PrCs that are misunderstandings IMHO.

1) Just because there is a PrC to represent the Knights of the Hart or the mage guild of silverymoon doesn't mean that you have to be a member of the PrC to play a member of the organisation. The PrC represents what many members of that group will train in etc, but it's not the be all and end all of the group.

2) that the class defines the character. Sep has said some good stuff on this. the mechanics are behind the scenes ways to describe a concept. Sep has stated pit fiend fighters. He doesn't think of them as devils trained to fight in a class, he just thinks of the mechanics as the best way to describe a character. I have an NPC in my campaign who is a Necromancer/Cleric/Mystic Thurge/True Necromancer. He didn't travel to Kumquat to become a mystic thurge, he studied ways to blend his magics.

3) Just because some PrCs represent organisations, all PrCs represent organisations. They don't. Not all PrCs have the same idea or motivation behind their design.

4) That because some PrCs are badly designed, and not everyone is interested in a particular PrC, the concept is therefore bad. The concept is fine.

Finally, it seems that far too many people spend a lot of time annoyed about buying books and magazines with PrCs they don't want in them. Don't buy the book if you don't want PrCs. Complaining about badly designed PrCs (and by that I mean over powered, not just fulfilling a role you aren't interested in) is much more valid than just saying 'no one makes books for me'. One of the funny things about all these threads is that people are full of 'I hate PrCs/feats', but I never see people say what they want in their books instead except 'more fluff less crunch'.

 

[Psion]

You can get across a great deal of rules-information across in a small space. Therefore, in a given book, you can fit a large number of rules-options, and a given buyer can discard many things and still find the book useful. Role-play, societal information, and the like take a great deal more verbiage to put across well to a reader. That means fewer different options per page, and if the buyer doesn't part of the product, he throws out a relatively larger portion of the work.

Not to mention that the non-rules material is typically harder to integrate unless you are talking about a supplement for a setting you are using (and even then, it might be even more out of whack if the supplement describes what is going on somewhere else than you are running) and is of lower value (since fiction and background doesn't have to be "balanced" and tabulated against existing rules.)

 

[Psion]

I swear, maybe it was a bad name choice, but the way people talk about PrCs you wouldn't realise that they were a flexible interesting way to create difference in a game system and roleplaying opportunities. They fill a whole range of roles:

Which is something the designers pointed out a long time ago.

 

[Olive]

Which is something the designers pointed out a long time ago.

I know. It's frustrating to me people didn't pay attention.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, my use of Prestige Classes is easily made in three points.

1. I have over 100 Prestige Classes in my campaign while less then 10 were written by someone other than myself (and kudos to Ambient & Mystic Eye for being the source of most of them).

2. PCs learn about Prestige Classes through role-play and can't get them without it.

3. Never over-use them as a GM.

As such, no, I'm not tired of Prestige Classes. I more or less ignore them.

 

[Wombat]

I'm wondering: do you prestige class grousers have the same problem with monsters? There are lots of books out there that are Wall-to-Wall monsters.

<snip>

Magic does this too, but nobody seems to complain about magic books, either.

Actually, I don't even bother to pick up monster books -- most of my adversaries are classed NPCs, with a smattering of monsters. I think there are far too many poorly thought out and, bluntly, silly monsters.

Magic books? Pretty much the same. A lot of poorly thought out extra rules, extra spells, and far, far too many items.

But what does all this mean? That people need to be selective in the supplements that they pick up. One person's "awful collection" is another person's "pure goodness".

In other words, it's best to look through any supplement and decide in terms of yourself and your campaign as to whether it is a good buy or not.

Not every supplement is good for everyone. And supplementitis is horribly catching...