Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[DonTadow]

I think this is a pretty pointless debate. .

There's never a such thing as a pointless debate. Debate's are not ot change people's opinion but to present a view.

It's not that flexablity is bad. It's good. Earlier I suggested the book Buy The Numbers which is a GREAT book, just overly complicated for right off the back newbies and basic players (the statement was meant to answer my own question Felon . My next campaign WILL BE BASED off of that system which will eliminate prestige's to a point in my campaign. HOnestly it's a better system than the multiclassing, prestige classing xp system that is out now.

So far this all sounds contradictary to my argument of pro prestiges. But my argument is not prestige's are the mesiah and should stay no matter what. It is that prestige's are great for the base system. They allow players to step into further archetypes and definitions of there characters without having to read through alot of text and mish and mash things. They balance out a game forthe DM whom does not feel like reading lots of errata and making sure certain thing's together are not overpowered.

Heck, I HATE the magic system in d20 which is why I use Elements of Magic, for its flexability. And BUy the Numbers finally gives the flexability over skills, class abilities and feats that makes sense. The thing is, it is too advanced for the basic end user and, while better, is more harmful to the game as both systems take DMs and Players whom have a firm understanding of the game before venturing.

 

[Stalker0]

PRCs are extremely creative ideas....created by game designers.

There has always been the need to adjust character options because of the limitations of material available.

But this used to be done BY PLAYERS!! If a player felt a class didn't quite get his character concept right, he would ask the DM to alter it slightly. The DM and the player would work on the concept, adjusting the classes he took here and there until they got it right. This requires imagination, and cooperation between the player and the dm.

Now, when a player is faced with such a problem, the first inclination is to look at prcs and feats. The Player's imagination is no longer being used. And if you don't use it, you lose it.

 

[Nifft]

There's never a such thing as a pointless debate. Debate's are not ot change people's opinion but to present a view.

You're wrong. The point of debate is to debase and humilliate others, while enforcing my views upon them.

-- N

 

[BSF]

Wow, big thread. I haven't read it's entirety yet, but I will respond to Crothian's initial question.

No, PrCs don't limit creativity. Of course, I rarely use published PrCs the way they are written. I build PrCs for my campaign world or I take an existing PrC and begin modifying it to fit my vision better. There are also several PrCs that I don't want in my campaign world because of the choices I make in creating the 'look and feel' of the campaign. I am one of the hard cases where I allow the core books in my game and require approval for anything from any other source.

Yeah, some of you will cry foul and declare me a control freak, but if you do remember that you are making a lot of assumptions based on one sentence. I also require my players to tell me that they want a PrC at least two levels before they want to enter it.

I don't want my players cherry picking stuff from books. I want them to tell me what they envision so I can help them find a way to realize that vision. The player might not be familiar with all the options that are really available (I often have a larger library than my players) or we might need to create new feats/spells/PrCs to fit the campaign and the character concept.

So I would say that PrCs don't limit creativity. Accepting only what is in the books without regard for character development may limit creativity though. Your vision may differ from the creator's vision. There's nothing wrong with that. Just adjust things so they are balanced and fit your vision.

 

[apesamongus]

I'm making up a new character after my dwarf fighter died. I'm looking into an elf Wizard and I've noticed that I either go for a prestige class and spend resources on stupid things that don't fit the character to gain something that does (the prestige class), or I go straight wizard and actually be able to build the character I envision.

So, do other people see prestige classes as making too many player choices for you?

If you're asking if I think something more freeform than the class structure is better for building characters as you invision them, then I'll agree. If you're saying that PrCs are worse at it than base classes, then I think it's non-sense. I fail to see how getting X and Y that don't make sense, just so you can get Z that is appropriate fits the character worse than sticking with base classes and never getting Z at all. Both are cases of the mechanics not matching the characters.

Personally, I try to turn as many base class/PrC abilities into feats or feat chains as I can.

 

[apesamongus]

They are actually more restirctive then classes. Classes don't requre anything to be taken, prestige classes do.

Yea, and PrCs often have many special abilities at lower level than base classes. It's a hell of a lot easier (to make an extreme example) to use one feat and 6 skill points to get in a PrC that gives two abilities you want at 1st and 2nd class levels than it is to take 14 levels of monk to get some ability you can't get any other way. Feat and skill prerequisites are much cheaper in opportunity cost than class levels are. Even base classes require buy-in to get to the better abilities. PrCs are just more up front about what the cost is.

 

[apesamongus]

Actually, there is a prestige class that fits what I want to do perfectly. It is that the requirements make little sense for the class and even less for the character.

I have a character concept that fits with Timeless Body perfectly, but nothing else about being a Kung-Fu mystic fits.

 

[Crothian]

I have a character concept that fits with Timeless Body perfectly, but nothing else about being a Kung-Fu mystic fits.

its easier to make one ability into a feat though then completely alter a class.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here is one place where PrCl's definitely INCREASE a player's options: The stick-in-the-mud DM.

Some DM's in my experience have an attitude of "If its not in a book, you can't use it." No customization of existing classes, races, abilities, etc. allowed.

A PrCl, however, by virtue of it being in print, passes muster with some of these guys.

Some DMs, however, don't even venture beyond the core books (like the last 2 I've played under)- and even disallow the PrCls in the DMG. Those players are on their own in Hose City as far as creative options go.

Don't get me wrong. Some of these guys are EXCELLENT DMs when it comes to running a game. However, they seem to see PrCls as a problem, the increased flexibility they allow is somehow a threat to their neat, orderly campaigns.

Fun, yes- but it IS a highly constrained game, to be sure. A creativity straightjacket, if you will.

Yes. It is possible to be creative within narrow constraints. There was a group of artists who got all of their material from the castoffs of other, more famous (at the time) artists. The elites they scrounged from started doing things like leaving out paint in 8 shades of yellow for them, just to see what they could do, and they did some excellent and creative stuff in those early years.

But when given access to a full palette, they did even MORE.

 

[yipwyg]

class abilities as feats

You can always go the d20 modern/grim tales method. They use talent trees for the class abilities. Grim tales even goes so far as break down the D&D classes into talent trees. Basicaly you get a feat evey other level, as well as a talent every other level. So 1st level bonus feat, 2nd level talent, 3rd level bonus feat, 4th level talent and so on.