DMs: PrCs more effort than worth?

Call me gearhead, but I like the fact that the players i have who know and understand the rules aren't going to know what they're getting! Plus I like making characters, so it's no bother.

I love the PrC concept, like most of them and feel they add to the game. So I guess I disagree with most of the thread. :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It depends on the PrC. If it does make sense and if the resulting NPC is significantly different from a NPC with just core class(es), I'm adding the PrC.

But it's true - it's more of a hassle for the GM when designing the NPC.
Starting out with the base requirement and according core classes is a essential, or else you'll get lost in the process...
 

I think the problem of PrC is in their requirements.

Ideally, they should be very simple. One or two mechanic conditions (among X feat, Y rank in a skill, or ability to cast Z spell); and an in-game condition (joining a prestigious organisation).

But what we've got in half a dozen or more mechanic conditions (requiring at least one feat, at least 3 skills, a minimal base attack bonus, etc.). And the in-game condition is most usually ditched altogether.

That's what make PrC so unwieldly when designing NPCs, if you want to do them by the rules.

It would have been better for PrCs to have simplest prerequisites, but be always associated with an organisation, secret or not. Then, multiclassing in the PrC would require merely to find and contact said organisation, gain their trust, pass an entry test, and if successful, congratulations, you're in.

The prerequisites would be dissimulated in the test.

For examples...
Rather than a minimal BAB score, the character could be tasked off slaying a family of ogres single-handedly. A guide lead him near the den where the monsters have been seen, and there he goes.
Rather than merely the capacity to cast spells of X level, the character's spellcasting could be tested against specially made spell-resistant items.
Rather than X ranks in Move Silently, Hide, and Open Lock, a character could be tasked to retrieve a particular item somewhere in a noble's mansion.

And so on.

Prestige classes whose joining would be fully roleplayed, ditching most, if not all, of the mechanics. People would be less likely to get into multiple prestige classes combos, because their loyalty would be questionned, and it would put the prestige back into prestige class.
 

First as a DM I look at my world and think about my adventure, IF I seen the need for a PrC I will find one that fills the gap or I can use with my players.

An example of this is the Red Wizard PrC, he fits into the game and becomes an center piece to it as NPC and description, the wizard player does not have to go that route but he knows I have provided it.

Another example is The Hunter of the Dead, my world has an afterlife getting there the dead have to cross a wasteland plane, burial rights have to be performed just to send the spirit of the dead to it, when those rights are not performed the dead can arise. The Hunter of the Dead is known for dealing with them.

A DM just have to build his story and world myth around the PrC not just add them willy-nilly.
 

Keith said:
ignore all the fussy stuff; that is all there so that PCs are balanced relative to each other, so players get a fair shake. NPCs don't need the fair shake, and don't have to be balanced relative to PCs.
That's my view on the topic, which as I said is doubtless a minority one here.

I'm with you, Keefey. A hundred percent.
 

I'm not using prestige classes in my current game. I'm making enough changes (using Elements of Magic, frin) that adding PrC's to the mix just makes it too crazy.
 

hong said:
Prestige classes : D&D :: GURPS vehicles : GURPS. Considerations like personalisation and embedding characters into settings aside, they're a gearhead toy. If you're not a gearhead, don't use them.
D00d, I do NOT need a calculator to make a blackguard...I DO need one to make a wheelbarrow in GURPS Vehicles. That book was the beginning of the end, for me. Conceptually, I'm with you...but in execution? Ouch.
 

WizarDru said:
D00d, I do NOT need a calculator to make a blackguard...I DO need one to make a wheelbarrow in GURPS Vehicles. That book was the beginning of the end, for me. Conceptually, I'm with you...but in execution? Ouch.
I will happily admit to using Windows' calculator as an aid when making up 12th level NPCs from scratch. Although that's regardless of whether prestige classes are involved or not. ;)
 

JoeGKushner said:
Other opinions on PrCs as viable DM tools?

THey are useful, but not all the time. I use the "right tool for the job" analogy. If you do want to fully stat out an NPC for a purpose, it's fine; but the more you stat them out, the more limited they become. I prefer to calculate the number of feats a character would have, then leave those slots open until it becomes time for the NPC to do something cool. Then, I stat out that ability, and write it down as a feat for the NPC. The players never have to know that this marginally balanced or unbalanced feat is something I'd never let them have; but it fits what that NPC is trying to do, since that same NPC does not have nearly the magics or the well-roundedness of the Player Characters.

For a gaming group that wants everything statted out perfectly, and wants all the rules aboveboard, then that's what things like PrC's and the various feats are for. However, for groups that don't need such levels of detail, you don't have to stat out every single detail of an NPC.

I WILL stat out major villains and the like, but most NPC's don't see much detail, even the ones who engage in combat.
 

JoeGKushner said:
Other opinions on PrCs as viable DM tools?

Well, I don't use them for most NPCs, but I find they are useful for:

1) Quick, prepackaged kernels of a villain concept, or
2) Defining special NPC groups

For some example, see this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=67622

I think they are a great DM tools. I find claims like (sorry Tonguez) "they are badly designed, badly implemented and badly used" to be nigh ludicrous.

Some are badly designed and badly implemented, to be sure. I have spent a fair amount of my free time online ranting about some of these. But all? No.

Badly used? Well, I think I use the ones in my game rather well if one examines the results, thankyouverymuch.
 

Remove ads

Top