Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[Aust Diamondew]

When I first started 3e I loved PRCs but after about a year I started to dislike them. Some PRCs are based around one ability, like the assassin which is based around death attack which it gets at level 1. Some PRCs exist that do things that you can accomplish by easily using the core classes. And alot of PRCs just don't fit into most game worlds. Thats why in my games I have a very limited number of PRCs allowed (despite having acess to at least a hundred from all of the books our group owns).

The thing is that some players start to get the idea that their character can't be a ninja with out there being a ninja class or they can't be a beserker with out a beserker class, I can't be a member of organization X unless they have a PRC and I take etc. It does curb creativity.

BTW as far as turning the shadow dancer into a series of feats do not for get about the fact that rogues get a 'special ability' at level 10 and every 3 levels there after they could very use those to take 'shadow dancer feats'.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do PrC's curb creativity?

My take on a short answer : Of course not.

I mean, how could they anyway?

They're there to use, if the DM allows them in his or her campaign, and if a player then wishes to take one or more whenever, for whatever reasons they might have.

However, I do concede that I might not be getting the gist of 'the other side' of this thing at all. Frankly, I can't even see another 'side', as it stands. It doesn't make any sense to me, that optional rules can in any way be a limiting factor or, well, a curbing one as the case may be. To the contrary, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeTheSlaves
If a player can't make a cool character concept out of a human & a core class, adding prc is merely dressing up the waste.


What about the people who can but choose to use them? Just because some people are in your opinion bad role players doesn't have any bearing on prestige classes.

Oh, and yeah - that too. As in, both the quote and the quoted quote.

 

[iwatt]

Sometimes the fluff of the class fits where the mechanics do not.

Yeah, I've seen this. What I really ahte though is when some DMs feel you have to take a class just beacaus of your character concept:

Me: "Ok, my ranger is a dedicated dragon slayer, who lots his paretnts in yadayada.."

DM: "Ah, well if you want to be called a dragon slayer you'll have to take the Prestige Class X from book Y. That means taking the following Z prerequisites."

Me. "Actually I was thinking og going straight ranger all the way. :\ "

A name is just a name. I hate when my fluff means I have to take someone elses crunch.

 

[Nifft]

I like Builder Classes (Fighter, Rogue) and I really like Builder PrCs -- the few that I've found (Archmage, Heirophant, Exotic Weapon Master).

-- N

 

[DonTadow]

Yeah, I've seen this. What I really ahte though is when some DMs feel you have to take a class just beacaus of your character concept:

Me: "Ok, my ranger is a dedicated dragon slayer, who lots his paretnts in yadayada.."

DM: "Ah, well if you want to be called a dragon slayer you'll have to take the Prestige Class X from book Y. That means taking the following Z prerequisites."

Me. "Actually I was thinking og going straight ranger all the way. :\ "

A name is just a name. I hate when my fluff means I have to take someone elses crunch.

The DM should work with you more on where yo uwant to go with the concept. A ranger is not a dragon slayer. They might hate dragons (favored enemy) but outside of your background there's no skills that really lean towards it. You're a ranger. THere's no problem with it, but when trying to solve a problem you want to get as specific as possible. If they have an official dragon slayer class and then why not pick it?

Else I can say, i want to play this thief, but iwant to go straight fighter doing it.. or for that matter straight ranger. .and you very well could do that. However, if the system already has stats for thieves and rogue, should't i want things in my character class that relate to my purpose. I don't think I"d make someone pick a particular pretige class but I"m always eager to present classes to my players that fit their goal.

 

[Crothian]

Yeah, I've seen this. What I really ahte though is when some DMs feel you have to take a class just beacaus of your character concept:

Me: "Ok, my ranger is a dedicated dragon slayer, who lots his paretnts in yadayada.."

DM: "Ah, well if you want to be called a dragon slayer you'll have to take the Prestige Class X from book Y. That means taking the following Z prerequisites."

Me. "Actually I was thinking og going straight ranger all the way. :\ "

A name is just a name. I hate when my fluff means I have to take someone elses crunch.

I always though this was becasue the classes had too common a names to them. It is one of the problems with the game, and other RPG games. They take common words and then give them spoecific game defintions. So when people use the word some people see them as the in game definition and not the normal definition. I've seen that create confusion in games.

 

[DonTadow]

I always though this was becasue the classes had too common a names to them. It is one of the problems with the game, and other RPG games. They take common words and then give them spoecific game defintions. So when people use the word some people see them as the in game definition and not the normal definition. I've seen that create confusion in games.

The base classes are what they are base classes. The names are meant to be common. Itdepends on the game. If youre DM is ok with using your background as your advancement then that is fine. If your DM wants you to pick a prestige class that matches your advancement that is fine as well. I do think the latter is more specific though.

 

[iwatt]

I always though this was becasue the classes had too common a names to them.

This exactly what I meant. People become sticklers for the name of a class. With a little effort, I can come up with some fluff that will explain any bizzare class combo.

You can be a thief without taking any levels of rogue.

You can be a city-bred brawler with the abilty to enter a rage, but some DMs only equate barbarian with savage from the frozen North.

You can be a ninja without taking anything but rogue levels (gasp!!)

And you can even be a nobleman without taking levels of aristocrat (double gasp!!!).

 

[iwatt]

If your DM wants you to pick a prestige class that matches your advancement that is fine as well.

I'm all for custom made Prestige classes for PCs. But a lot of players get their panties in a bunch whenever they feel their character choices are been directed by the DM. I've pointed some players towarsd PRCs that fit their character concept like a glove and that worked very well for them, and sometimes I still get this reaction. So it's very case dependant.

What I was mostly trying to say is that I really dislike when some DMs and players equate characetr concepts to determined classes (base or prestige).

You can be a member of the Harpers without taking the prestige class.

You can be a Red wizard without taking the prestige class.

You can call yourself an archmage without taking the prestige class.

You can be an assasin without taking any levels in rogue or the assasin PRCs.

You can even be a Sanctified slayer of Drag-benoth the Holy or whatever homebrew PRC your DM has, without necessarily taking levels in the PRC.

 

[DonTadow]

This exactly what I meant. People become sticklers for the name of a class. With a little effort, I can come up with some fluff that will explain any bizzare class combo.

You can be a thief without taking any levels of rogue.

You can be a city-bred brawler with the abilty to enter a rage, but some DMs only equate barbarian with savage from the frozen North.

You can be a ninja without taking anything but rogue levels (gasp!!)

And you can even be a nobleman without taking levels of aristocrat (double gasp!!!).

I think when we start to take that approach we start playing outside the rules of the game. Sure, you could do all of the following, but it takes away the point of having rules for classes. A fighter whom steals is just a fighter whom steals things. The rogue class defines thief. It's the rule of the game. Why change rules and rearrange the game. It seems as if doing any of the following would just be acts of defiance against the game. Trying to etch your own mark on a game with already established rules.

When you read through the classes you understand why a thief needs rogue classes. Why a barbarian needs barbarian classes. Outside of race, class is the first defintion of your character. That's why the names are common. A fighter fights, a rogue does thief , rogue or treasure huntertype things. When you pick these classes it is assumed that you have training in these arts. If you're stealingand acting roguish, as a dm I expect you to have some rogue skills.