Are PrC's too powerful?

[Bendris Noulg]

The easy answer is to RP it all away, and tell your players that PrC's are for those who have made the right connections with the right people. I don't think that RP'ing mechanical issues away is really a solid solution to what I see as a widespread issue.

Actually, that's exactly how I handle it IMC.

In addition, I'd be very hesitant about joining a game that didn't do similar.

You can make 90% of them with some high level feats and a couple of custom spells.

Very true indeed. I'm one of them DMs that always writes his own Prestige Classes (with but one exception thus far, the Practical Ones from Librum Equitus), and this is exactly what I try to avoid. Make the class something unique, something not obtainable any other way, and at the expense of what its "base" would normally gain, rather than super-powers layered ontop of everything the class would gain anyway; Make the choice between the Core Class and the Prestige Class mean something, not just a debate between Prestige Class A or Prestige Class B because both give more than the Core Class.

Give me a book of mid to high level feats and I will be happy.

Indeed! "Special" category Feats could be great this way. A few that require "Sorcerer 10", "Fighter 12" or other double-digit levels in a specific class would go a long way in making full-advancement in Core Classes a more attractive option.

 

[Psion]

Are PrC's too powerful?

Which prestige class?

Some are. Some aren't.

One of the benchmarks for too powerful is if everybody has it, and it's rare to see characters without PrC's.

It is? Not IME. I have a group of 6 players:

Last game: 1 PrC (ghostwalker)

Current D&D game: 1 planned PRC

Current spycraft game: No PrC.

As an example, should spellcaster PrC's never give full caster advancement if nifty goodies are handed out too?

That depends.

Losing casting levels is a big hit. A class that requires several non-caster levels to enter is not a big deal.

Likewise, classes that have fiarly tepic abilities (like the candle caster) are okay, I think.

But in general, I agree. FFG and Mongoose have MANY PRCs that hand out potent abilities AND full spellcasting advancement.

Solution: don't allow them. Or tone the advancement down.

 

[ForceUser]

Prestige classes are cool, especially if a DM takes the time to incorporate them into the backstory of his campaign world. They help a DM define his setting. When you include special groups of NPCs such as, for example, the Black Monks of Azkazan, the Cabalists of Wraithmoor, and the Knights Radiant, it is fun to have PrCs to set those groups apart from standard character classes. Let's face it, many D&D players are longtime gamers and have seen it all; a group with unique or mysterious powers will almost always spark a jaded player's interest.

I agree that many PrCs are more powerful that the core classes. What you as DM must do is judge each PrC on a case-by-case basis and decide what is allowable and what isn't. As a rule of thumb, if a player character gains more than he loses when transitioning to a PrC, it's too powerful. In my opinion, PrCs are merely supposed to offer alternate or more specialized avenues of advancement.

 

[carpedavid]

I'd have to agree with Psion - some are too powerful, some aren't. A properly balanced PrC is, I think, less powerful than a core class in general, but more powerful in a specific area. In fact, that's the whole philosophy behind them, as I see it.

If the problem is that a PrC is too powerful, then eliminate it. I do the same thing with overpowered feats, skills, magic items, etc...

Most of my players who take PrCs do so because it fits their vision of their character. Often, they'll take PrCs that I've created that are not terribly powerful, but have lots of flavor.

That's just my 2 cents.

 

[Hejdun]

There is no perceived incentive to stick with a core class when you can have most everything (and in many cases, everything) the core class provides plus some cool extras. This tells me that they are, in general, too much.

That's my main problem with prestige classes, they eliminate virtually every reason to continue with a core class. They just do everything that the core class can do, but with nifty powers attached.

 

[muhcashin]

Just don't get it

I still think that most people haven't understood what PrCs are. Go read your DMG or better yet read Monte Cook's PrC workshop .This is taken from his article.

A lot of the ones being designed and published today do not actually fill the role they originally were meant to fill. I get frustrated when I see people griping about prestige classes, when really what they are dissatisfied with is the way other people have interpreted prestige classes. The original design intention behind them was to allow DMs to create campaign-specific, exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus characters in specific, interesting directions.

To me, this implies that only DMs decided whether a PrC actually fits in his/her campaign. Also, PrC are meant to make a character stronger in one domain, yet weaker in another, its called specialization. That's what PrCs reward.

The key there -- the one that's now often missing -- is that these are supposed to be DM-created tools, to lend specificity and actual mechanics to the details of your world. In short, you come up with some group, role, or whatever for your campaign (the Rangers of the Northwood, the Thief's Guild of Bandonburg, the Nightstalkers, etc.), and you create a prestige class based around that group. Too many prestige classes are designed like 2nd Edition kits: player-driven PC-creation tools for character customization. That's okay sometimes, but it really overlooks the main reason that prestige classes were invented. Oh well. That's my little rant.

Anyways, you should really check this article out.

 

[ph34r]

Not everyone PC takes a PrC. My character right now is an 11th level fighter and I plan to go straight fighter from now on out aswell.

 

[Crothian]

Fair enough. I'm not really talking about balance vs fun, but rather having viable options in sticking with a core class rather than jumping into a PrC, or even another class.

If a player feels their character sucks compared to another character in the party because he stuck true with fighter and the other player took some ranger and some rogue (or whatever) then hopped into a PrC and now kicks more ass than the pure fighter can, that detracts from the game. Even though he stuck with fighter because it's part of his concept, he feels left behind.

I wasn't aware that power and equality of character was a prerequisite with fun. I know your not talking about balance verse fun, but in the end if the people are having fun it shouldn't be a problem.

Sure some prestige classes are too much and will overshadow a core class. It's bound to happen with the thousand plus prestige classes done by dozens of different authors. I think the trick is not to disallow all prestige classes or the ones that may be too much, but too make sure that the person potentially playing the lesser character is aware of it and doesn't mind that. I know many gamers who don't care if there is a PC better then them at certain things.

 

[Ace]

Hate hate hate PrCs. You can make 90% of them with some high level feats and a couple of custom spells. Give me a book of mid to high level feats and I will be happy.

I don't care for PRC's myself. I would rather just by "Rathamri Battle Cast" as a feat or "Sureshot" or something YMMV

 

[Tiefling]

One of the benchmarks for too powerful is if everybody has it, and it's rare to see characters without PrC's.

Where'd that data come from?