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

[d4]

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.

i'm not against hooks that tie the character into the setting -- i think they are great too.

however, i don't think it requires joining a special cult or finding a unique master in order to become a more focused swordsman (as opposed to a more generalist fighter), for example. sometimes, that's something one can do on one's own through practice and solitary study. that's why i don't think every prestige class needs to require such things.

 

[Halivar]

In general, I don't like DM's telling players what they can and can't be; player concepts change over time and that should be the exclusive domain of players (that's my DM opinion, anyhow). Pretty much if it comes via a channel that helps me know it was playtested, I'll allow it. Sometimes I'll even let them fudge the prereq's. In the end, the game is for the players, not for me. I want them to have fun.

Of course, as the DM, I also reserve the right to do the same thing for the baddies I throw at them. If they're going to take the uber-cool PrC then I'm going to throw them an evil NPC that's uber-powerful in their weak spot. In general, the free allowance of anything that's published gives the players, and me, a lot more freedom to make the game we want (remember that most of the story is written by players, not DM's).

Fortunately for me, the DM I play under has the same attitude (heck, he even lets me design my own prestige classes).

 

[Wombat]

In general, I don't like DM's telling players what they can and can't be; player concepts change over time and that should be the exclusive domain of players (that's my DM opinion, anyhow). Pretty much if it comes via a channel that helps me know it was playtested, I'll allow it. Sometimes I'll even let them fudge the prereq's. In the end, the game is for the players, not for me. I want them to have fun.

Of course, as the DM, I also reserve the right to do the same thing for the baddies I throw at them. If they're going to take the uber-cool PrC then I'm going to throw them an evil NPC that's uber-powerful in their weak spot. In general, the free allowance of anything that's published gives the players, and me, a lot more freedom to make the game we want (remember that most of the story is written by players, not DM's).

Fortunately for me, the DM I play under has the same attitude (heck, he even lets me design my own prestige classes).

Hmm, so all PrCs should be allowed in all games? From all sources? Even if they are world-specific, such as Red Wizards? Including Dragon and Third Party publishers?

That would lead to a very messy game world, in my opinion. In my current game, for example, I have decreed that there are no Psionics, no Monks, that we are using the Monte Cook version of the Bard, and other such changes just to the core classes; as stated earlier I have come up with a list of about 12 PrCs that I allow in the campaign. All five of my gamers are good with that; to date no one has taken any of the PrCs (all of which are larger organizations in the gameworld) and they are quite good with that. No one has asked for any classes or PrCs to be added back into the mix.

The point here (yes, there is one) is that each group will come up with its own set of limits (or, in line with your suggestion, lack thereof). Equally the choices are usually first set by the GM and then altered in accordance to players' wishes, given some basic parameters.

 

[Mallus]

...however, i don't think it requires joining a special cult or finding a unique master in order to become a more focused swordsman (as opposed to a more generalist fighter), for example. sometimes, that's something one can do on one's own through practice and solitary study. that's why i don't think every prestige class needs to require such things.

Having characters seek out special training/guidance/mentorship/enlightment has three very big benefits...

1) It generates story/plot/new adventures. Ones that by definition the players are highly motivated for.

2) It add realism. While wild talents spring up in all disciplines, they're rare. Most chess masters/opera stars/star athlete's seek out, and have their future successes decided by, the right trainers/mentors/coaches/organizations.

3) It adds versimiltude. This kind of theing is a stock plot device in everthing for fantasy lit. to martial arts films. Luke needed Yoda, countless Shaolin fighters had to climb Zu Mountain in order to learn how to fly on wires...

I really like PrC's being used to tie the characters to the world. Makes each individual game less generic and less focused on the pure mechanics. I think the biggest shame about 3.0+ ed. is that it leads some people to think of characters as if they were glorified, bipedal Magic decks, and not fantasy alter-egos...

 

[Halivar]

Hmm, so all PrCs should be allowed in all games? From all sources? Even if they are world-specific, such as Red Wizards? Including Dragon and Third Party publishers?

Well no one has printed a PrC off of JoeBob's Ultimate D&D Website and tried to use it yet, so I suppose I can safely say they have to be from a reputable publisher (or ok'd by me; and I won't turn down anything for any reason other than ludicrously unbalancing mechanics). Most publishers have a good QA process with playtesters at least as smart as I am. For the most part, I can't say something is unbalanced until I have seen it played out.

As for world-specific stuff, the Red Wizard can be fitted into any world by changing the flavor text and class name. Not a prob.

That would lead to a very messy game world, in my opinion.

It may lead to messy characters, but I can let the players dig their own holes. Certainly there is the expectation that they come up with good RP reasons for the choices they make, so I suppose that's an artificial barrier I put in. Obviously I'm not going to let a d20 Modern or OA character into my medieval fantasy game. But if it's mideval fantasy, I can and will work it in.

In my current game, for example, I have decreed that there are no Psionics, no Monks, that we are using the Monte Cook version of the Bard, and other such changes just to the core classes; as stated earlier I have come up with a list of about 12 PrCs that I allow in the campaign.

I'm sure that makes it easier for you as a DM, both in designing the adventure, tying the players to the setting, and coming up with encounters. But again, the question is, "who is the game for?" The extra DM leg-work is worth it, IMO, to let the players have their way most (read: not all) of the time.

All five of my gamers are good with that; to date no one has taken any of the PrCs (all of which are larger organizations in the gameworld) and they are quite good with that. No one has asked for any classes or PrCs to be added back into the mix.

Well, for one thing, it may just be that no one wants to take levels in those 12 PrC's because they suck (as most do, IMO, from a mechanics perspective; especially WotC's, but that is purely my subjective opinion). And while you have proven that your players are willing to live with your rules, you haven't shown that the game is actually funner for them.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

Do you also require role-playing hooks for the 1st level character to choose Fighter or Rogue as their class?

I think the difference is you see the classes as existing in the game world. I see the classes as game mechanics. In the game world, people don't level up, they don't take a level of Rogue. They don't meet prerequisites to enter prestige classes. These are all game mechanics. Thus I see specialist prestige classes as just another set of abilities available to anyone who studies toward them.

I hate prestige classes that required for membership in an organization. Do you have to take levels in Harper Scout before the Harpers let you go look into something over the next ridge? Will the Red Wizards not allow Archmage's into their ranks? Must my 10th level Sorcerer take a level of Rogue in order to join a Thieves' Guild?

That's just my take on it.

 

[d4]

Having characters seek out special training/guidance/mentorship/enlightment has three very big benefits...
[snip]

i agree, those are all very tangible and worthwhile benefits.

i never said that all prestige classes should forgo those things. i merely said that not every PrC needs them. i can envision some concepts that fit the prestige class model that do not require training/guidance/mentorship/etc.

I really like PrC's being used to tie the characters to the world. Makes each individual game less generic and less focused on the pure mechanics.

i also like having characters tied to the world. however, i see no need to codify that in the game mechanics -- i.e., in the prerequisites of a prestige class. if a player wants his PC to be tied into the world, it will happen. it does not require rules or mechanics to make it so.

so i think i have the exact opposite reaction as you. when i see something akin to "members of this prestige class all belong to this organization and have these abilities and prerequisites," in my mind that makes those characters more generic (because they all have so many similiarities now) and turns a way of linking the PC to the world into "pure mechanics" (i.e., in order to have this "role-playing hook" (membership in this organization), you must have the following game mechanical prerequisites...).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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."

I dunno. It seems to me straightforward specializations should be handled primarily by the Feat system.

 

[d4]

I dunno. It seems to me straightforward specializations should be handled primarily by the Feat system.

that is definitely a possibility. however as i mentioned before, for most characters i feel feats come too rarely to really allow for too much specialization. surely not as much as taking several levels in a prestige class.

 

[maddman75]

Do you also require role-playing hooks for the 1st level character to choose Fighter or Rogue as their class?

I think the difference is you see the classes as existing in the game world. I see the classes as game mechanics. In the game world, people don't level up, they don't take a level of Rogue. They don't meet prerequisites to enter prestige classes. These are all game mechanics. Thus I see specialist prestige classes as just another set of abilities available to anyone who studies toward them.

I hate prestige classes that required for membership in an organization. Do you have to take levels in Harper Scout before the Harpers let you go look into something over the next ridge? Will the Red Wizards not allow Archmage's into their ranks? Must my 10th level Sorcerer take a level of Rogue in order to join a Thieves' Guild?

That's just my take on it.

I see prestige classes and core classes as fundamentally different. The basic building blocks of character design are the core classes. PrCs are specialized training and a special thing for a character to have. Not something that just anyone can do.

Nor do you *have* to take levels in the class in order to join the organization. A fighter or paladin could join a knightly order and never take up their special training.

On the flip side I'm much less concerned with mechanical requirements. If you join, you're in, and as long as you have the abilities needed to do the class's role, that's fine. What I mean is you have to have the +5 BAB, as it requires a certain level of martial prowess. But I'm not concerned if you don't blow a feat on Endurance or something.

I've done it both ways, and the game was a lot more fun with the restrictions. I also banned druid and barbarian from the PCs, as their culture didn't have them.