Building a character concept with core classes X The PrCs dogma

[Ukyo the undead]

One thing that I see frequently in the boards is the discussion about the verissimilitude of certain multiclass options. Even though I know that some are truly ridiculous, one thing bothered me:

The steryotypes( how do I spell that??).

Some say that it´s really ridiculous to have an fighter gain a level in barbarian, because of a barbarianis a wild man, with no maneers or formal education.

But, if the Fighter´s player take an prestige class that give rage, 4+ int bonus skill points, +10 movement and the barb skill list,

it´s okay.

I think we are really overusing the core classes as sacred concepts. Im my former group, some players complained when my character, that was a F2/R2, gained a level of sorcerer, just because I wanted to have a really great disarmer and took shield and true strike. Some said I was cheating, others that I
was powergaming.

But I know that if there were a PrC that doing the same thing I was trying to do using core classes, but better, nobody would complain.

In short:


Why do some people dislike when a player make a character he wants with a combination of classes( a berserker fighter, for example, effectively being a F1/Barb1), but don´t say a thing when it is achieved via PrCs??

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

Probably because the PrC has more than a few requirements which contributes to a sense of "growth" for the character.

Scenario A) Joe the fighter wants to rage with the wild men. He takes a level of Barbarian. The player tells the DM it's because his character spent a few weeks in the mountians with wild, vicious, barbarian penguins (or something). There are no requirements according to "da r00lz".

Scenario B) Joe the fighter wants to rage with the wild men. He looks at the "Wild Man" PrC and sees that he's going to need a few skill ranks in Wilderness Lore and Animal Handling (sheep). Over the course of a few levels, he gains those skill points and evenentually becomes accepted as a brother Wild Man.

B provides more context than A.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

I know there is a worry with the preerequisites and background, but what i see is people trusting too much in the PrCs.

I know there is people making PrCs in theirs homebrew world, not been bounded by the published books.

But I´m also seeing people despising multiclass as if it were a powergaming tool, not building a character concept he/she ever wanted to do just because there´s no PrCs exactly looking like her Character image.

And a conclusion i had is that multiclass is not better than prcs, overall.

So, its a second class option for a lack of PrCs you would want.

 

[Zappo]

IMC, core classes and even a few prestige classes only represent a bunch of skill; they don't have a character concept behind them. The one exception is the paladin (one of the reasons for which I think it should be a PrC); paladins have some stringent roleplaying requirements.

 

[EarthsShadow]

This is why I am thinking of not allowing PrC in my upcoming game. To much meta-game thinking is involved I think.

 

[Tonguez]

So, its a second class option for a lack of PrCs you would want.

It also highlights the inflexibility of a 'class based' system - in a non-class sytem (eg GURPS) you could add that Rage ability to your 'Fighter concept' and noone would complain.

Unfortunately Class- based systems give you a 'bundle of abilities' without the flexibility to choose exactly which you want and which you don't

Of course the OA monk does offer something towards this mix and match option - so perhaps if somebody could expand on the idea and create a mix and match system
(ps my own houserule says that 1st level Class abilities are feats and so you can use a feat to get them (ie a Fighter imc could get the 1st level version of rage if they wanted)

NB I'm not saying that mix and match systems like GURPS are better than Class systems like DnD - only more flexible and that is something I like (however the D20 mechanic is way better than GURPS which is why I'm back for 3e)

 

[Ukyo the undead]

What I see is people treating the class as if the the characters had a label on their foreheads: I am a Rogue, or I am a fighter. I know this labels are somewhat usefull and give a guideline to a player, but frequently people stick with the steriotypes in a not criative way:

A barbarian must be illitered and wears vikings cloaths

A rogue must be sneaky. and use a rapier

A monk, zen.

Why not use the character Barb1 as a berserker? Why should he have to be a savage man??? Or a vinking? Why don´t make that big guy that dont like to fight, but if you piss him he will try to take your head of a character with one level of barb?

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

This is why I am thinking of not allowing PrC in my upcoming game. To much meta-game thinking is involved I think.

Yes, but the flip side is that it lets the players have more options about the direction they want to take their character. More player decisions makes for a better game.

My two cents (which, when combined with my two cents above, makes four cents)

 

[Ukyo the undead]

Yes, but the flip side is that it lets the players have more options about the direction they want to take their character. More player decisions makes for a better game.

I think it can have the opposite effect. Player´s building a character driven to a PrC, even if it doesnt make sense in the history.

 

[Henry]

I do have to say that people read too much into the given names of the core classes. "Barbarian", "Sorcerer", "Ranger" - everyone has their own idea of what these should be, and they impose to a smaller or larger degree, what they think should be a "Sorcerer" or "Barbarian."

Rangers are automatically assumed to be bowmen by some - perhaps because of the examples of Legolas and Aragorn, perhaps because of Robin Hood. But what is a ranger, by the 3E rules?

A Ranger is built for scouting in an individual capacity, cut off from support. The PHB ranger can track, hide, heal, melee, set up traps and warnings, find food and shelter for himself, withstand tremendous extremes of heat and cold, and is hardy enough to withstand various injuries. And he can do all this by approximately 7th level or so! (Most of it by 4th.) No other class mixes all these traits short of relying on numerous magic items.

However, a Ranger is just as adept for city adventure as wilderness adventure. A ranger could be played as rarely having set foot in the wilderness (and when the name of WIld Lore is changed to Survival, that image will be complete). The same traits are valuable for tracking rogues and murderers in the slums of a city.

The barbarian has no class abilities that imply affinity with the wilderness, or a savage lifestyle. All implications are optional - through class skills and feats. His abilities imply pain immunity and chaotic abandon in combat - Rage, uncanny dodge, fast move, damage resistance, d12 hit dice - these are necessarily the traits of a Tasmanian Devil, but not necessarily traits of the savage or wilderness warrior - as the Ranger class also demonstrates.

Most any character concept can be filled with existing classes, skills, and feats - but the reason I think people prefer to do it through prestige classes is because of the uniqueness. TONS of players have a level or two of ranger or barbarian - but far fewer are in the Order of the Bow, or are a Tempest, or are Forsakers. It's a less bland claim to make.