Clarifying the Prestige Class Concept (something WotC should have done with the rev.)

[Kae'Yoss]

I've turned into a real hardliner about this. IMC, I have no patience for or interest in PrCs for merely mechanical advantages. Those don't exist. I don't let players just take whatever class they dig out of a splatbook.

First, I have to approve the class. If there's something I don't like about it either mechanically or flavor-wise, I'll change it. If it's too far gone, I'll ban it. But I do want to let the PC play the character he wants to play, so long as it will make sense in my world I'll find a way to fit it in.

Second, there's more to it than just taking levels in a class. You have to find the members of the organization, guild, brotherhood, or what have you. There are NO classes that are independant of training. Some may be formal schools, or may work on a master/apprentice arrangement. You have to convince them to let you join.

Finally, there's going to be both advantages and drawbacks from the organization. However, I'm a lot less stringent about the mechanical requirements. I mean if your PC has joined the ranks of the Brotherhood of the Lance, passed their trials, and earned their trust, as well as spent a month of intensive training at their fortress, I'm not going to keep you out of the class because you forgot to waste a feat on Endurance last level.

As an example, one of my PCs expressed an interest in Arcane Trickster. His halfling wiz/rog wanted to go that route eventually. So I worked in a subplot of a cabal of halfling mages that were courting him, trying to influence their human lords from behind the scenes. This 'halfling illuminati' became a fun part of the campaign world, and is much more interesting than listing some abilities on your character sheet.

I don't like those "you have to train with someone to get into that class" as a general prerequisite, because it doesn't suit all kinds of campaigns, and I for one don't want to tinker with my campaign by putting something in that doesn't fit. I also don't like when the characters stop saving the world to spend a month training to be a red mage or anything. As far as I'm concerned, they train before, when they get the prereqs for example. I can't understand why someone should earn thousands of XP by solving puzzles and defeating monsters, but need a week of training nonetheless. It's something my AD&D groups did, and they liked being restrictive. I hate it.

Some PrC's are just specialists. The same way you can multiclass into any core class without special training, you can enter into those without special training. They don't belong to a single organization, but are just a more specialized sort of character.

The organization type PrC's will require you to join IMC. After that, you can advance in that class, not by training with them, but by adventuring (where you get the XP). The joining business has to be done before, but they can do it way before to pave their way.


But I have a rule: Once you started one PrC, you have to finish it before you get to the next. If you don't, you face the usual XP-penalties.

... there was the one guy who wanted to be a Flaming Drow Poodlemancer, but that's another story...).

Let me guess. He wanted to fill his portable hole with a certain beverage...?

 

[Dextra]

Woot!

For my current campaign we have, if I remember right, about 12 PrCs and only one player has shown a real interest in joining one; none of my players has asked me to expand the list (well, as seriously asked me to expand the list ... there was the one guy who wanted to be a Flaming Drow Poodlemancer, but that's another story...).

Wow. I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone wish to be a Flaming Drow Poodlemancer. But it's technically not a Prestige Class, it's just an arcane spellcaster who only has access to the Poodlemancy school of spells/spell list.

Thank you for making me smile- I've had a really rough week, and was hoping to see some mention of some of our prestige classes, and to see one I worked on makes me happy.

 

[maddman75]

I don't like those "you have to train with someone to get into that class" as a general prerequisite, because it doesn't suit all kinds of campaigns, and I for one don't want to tinker with my campaign by putting something in that doesn't fit. I also don't like when the characters stop saving the world to spend a month training to be a red mage or anything. As far as I'm concerned, they train before, when they get the prereqs for example. I can't understand why someone should earn thousands of XP by solving puzzles and defeating monsters, but need a week of training nonetheless. It's something my AD&D groups did, and they liked being restrictive. I hate it.

I DO want the characters to be a part of the world. If it's something I hadn't thought of, it will only expand the world and give it new flavor. There's countless wizard cabals, combat schools, and secret brotherhoods. When I need one, I'll flesh one out.

And a month of training isn't absolutely required, though a master of some kind is. If they develop a relationship with an NPC master and go for a few lessons between adventures, that's good enough. I don't require training to go up levels or even to multiclass - I just want to emphasize that getting into a PrC is something special. It's not something every character is going to do.

Some PrC's are just specialists. The same way you can multiclass into any core class without special training, you can enter into those without special training. They don't belong to a single organization, but are just a more specialized sort of character.

Not in my game. I find this highly distasteful. If you want to specialize, do it with MC and feats. You can have a specialization PrC, but it will be specialization + role-playing hooks.

The organization type PrC's will require you to join IMC. After that, you can advance in that class, not by training with them, but by adventuring (where you get the XP). The joining business has to be done before, but they can do it way before to pave their way.


But I have a rule: Once you started one PrC, you have to finish it before you get to the next. If you don't, you face the usual XP-penalties.

I can't even see more than one PrC - being in one is going to require a bit too much of the character's time in the first place. The responsibilities of a second would be too great. They'd likely end up having to retire and play politics between the two.

But again IMC, there's often little difference between playing politics and adventuring...

 

[Glyfair]

Not in my game. I find this highly distasteful. If you want to specialize, do it with MC and feats. You can have a specialization PrC, but it will be specialization + role-playing hooks.

The problem with that is that you often end up with a severely subpar character if you have built in weaknesses to make up for your strengths. While I don't want a min/max character that's designed to do only one thing, I also don't want a character who has weakened himself so much in the name of flavor, that he's unplayable.

Take the "Duelist" type of character. By not wearing armor (or at least not heavy armor), you are severely weakening the basic fighter type. A fighter who doesn't wear armor had better have exactly the right magic items to compensate for that lack, or they're just going to die quickly (or be useless hiding from combat). A class that gives them benefits to counteract this weakness, while enforcing the weakness is the sort of thing a specialist class should do, in my opinion.

Of course, some of these abilities could be done by greatly increasing the number of feats in the game. However, at a certain point of this development you are moving towards a non-class type game system and might as well be playing a different game geared in that direction.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I'll never understand why people complain about PrCs that grant new character abilities at the expense of losing other abilities. Just because people have released bad prestige classes before doesn't mean that good ones don't exist. I just wish the word prestige had not been used to describe them. They should be called Restricted Access Classes. Then no one would care if they had flavor or not. Only their balance would matter.

IMO, having seen lots of PrCs in the past few years, the complaint is that many PrC characters don't have to pay the expense of losing other abilities. The tradeoffs far outweigh the price. If it costs you effectively nothing, why wouldn't a PC take a Prestige Class? If you can do this three times for two levels apiece and achieve an overabundance of synergy, why wouldn't you do that?

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with renaming the description, or breaking them into different segments, each with its own name.

One of the major complaints that I see comes from new DMs (who are under the microscope already). It's of the "but it's in the book" variety. You know, when some player comes up with a splat book or supplement and picks out the most powerful PrC (or three) to join. Many beginning DMs have a hard time saying no to something "official". Further, they are just starting to hone their skills to learn how to evaluate. Three years after I started 3rd edition, I'm much better at analyzing a PrC than I was when we all took up D&D again. So part of the issue is also DMs learning curve.

I must say I like the initial analysis. It defines the types of classes more concisely than any discussion I've seen so far.

 

[Ace]

I also tend to see a 4th "subcatagory' of of the specialized prestige class, Combat styles

These classes tend to be 5 or 10 levels focusing on a weapon or combat form

Masters of Arms and of course Swashbuckling Adventurers rae rich with them

They differ from "specialzation"prestige classes in that they are applicable across a fairly wide range of concepts

There aren't that many ways to do a Duelist but various Rapier styles are another matter

Of course I could be picking nits

 

[d4]

Not in my game. I find this highly distasteful. If you want to specialize, do it with MC and feats. You can have a specialization PrC, but it will be specialization + role-playing hooks.

in my experience, multi-classing leads to characters who are more generalized, not more specialized. and feats usually come too infrequently (for classes other than Fighter) to do much to change the focus of the character.

specialization is one of the things that i think prestige classes do exceptionally well.

i don't see the need to always require "role-playing hooks" when someone wants to specialize. IMO it's perfectly OK to say, "Look, i just want to get better in this one particular area without all that baggage attached."

 

[maddman75]

The problem with that is that you often end up with a severely subpar character if you have built in weaknesses to make up for your strengths. While I don't want a min/max character that's designed to do only one thing, I also don't want a character who has weakened himself so much in the name of flavor, that he's unplayable.

I just don't think that there shouldn't be suboptimal combinations. If wizard/cleric is a weak combination, then maybe arcane and divine magic just don't mix well. However such a character would greatly benefit by having connections amoung both the wizard cabals and the Church.

Take the "Duelist" type of character. By not wearing armor (or at least not heavy armor), you are severely weakening the basic fighter type. A fighter who doesn't wear armor had better have exactly the right magic items to compensate for that lack, or they're just going to die quickly (or be useless hiding from combat). A class that gives them benefits to counteract this weakness, while enforcing the weakness is the sort of thing a specialist class should do, in my opinion.

High dex, weapon finesse rapier, couple of levels in rogue for tumbling, sneak attack, and interpersonal skills. One duelist, no PrC required. However if you'd like to seek out a master or join a combat school maybe we can work in the Duelist class.

Of course, some of these abilities could be done by greatly increasing the number of feats in the game. However, at a certain point of this development you are moving towards a non-class type game system and might as well be playing a different game geared in that direction.

Every class has ways to specialize. Fighters through feats, rogues through skill selection, wizards through spell selection, clerics through domains.

 

[maddman75]

in my experience, multi-classing leads to characters who are more generalized, not more specialized. and feats usually come too infrequently (for classes other than Fighter) to do much to change the focus of the character.

specialization is one of the things that i think prestige classes do exceptionally well.

i don't see the need to always require "role-playing hooks" when someone wants to specialize. IMO it's perfectly OK to say, "Look, i just want to get better in this one particular area without all that baggage attached."

Role playing hooks are what I'm all about. If your main concern is getting more bonuses in one area you probably aren't gonig to get very far in my game. It's not the ones with bad combat abilities that are marginalized, but the ones with no ties to the campaign world.

Not that playing another way is wrong, I've done plenty of the straight up D&D. Just expressing what I think PrCs should be and how they can be used to flesh out a campaign world rather than just fill out abilities.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I just don't think that there shouldn't be suboptimal combinations. If wizard/cleric is a weak combination, then maybe arcane and divine magic just don't mix well. However such a character would greatly benefit by having connections amoung both the wizard cabals and the Church.

This connections won't save you from being blasted by a straight spellcaster. You can't have your Mentor around at all times to watch your back.