Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

...why does the name of the class matter in game?

 

[Nifft]

...why does the name of the class matter in game?

Because all PCs and NPC write their class-names on their hats. (Right before their level.)

-- N

 

[iwatt]

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.

Who's changing the rules. Why is calling a thief a thief breaking the rules. Is a fighter with good climb skills, and cross class ranks in hide and move silently that bad a thief?

When you read through the classes you understand why a thief needs rogue classes.

He needs rogue classes only if the player wants them. He could stil be a thief (in the sense that he could steal) without rogue levels.

Why a barbarian needs barbarian classes.

Why exactly. Can't he be a fighter? a rogue? or even a bard? He can still be a barbarian.

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.

What is acting roguish? Do all rogues in your games have maxed out Search, Disable Device, Open Locks, Spot and Listen?

And you can expect all you want, that doesn't mean that my thief has to have disable device and open locks.

 

[DonTadow]

Who's changing the rules. Why is calling a thief a thief breaking the rules. Is a fighter with good climb skills, and cross class ranks in hide and move silently that bad a thief?




He needs rogue classes only if the player wants them. He could stil be a thief (in the sense that he could steal) without rogue levels.




Why exactly. Can't he be a fighter? a rogue? or even a bard? He can still be a barbarian.



What is acting roguish? Do all rogues in your games have maxed out Search, Disable Device, Open Locks, Spot and Listen?

And you can expect all you want, that doesn't mean that my thief has to have disable device and open locks.

The class systems are based on career paths. As a rogue, YOu've gained these skills and abilities through your life so far (up to first level). LIke I said, you can be a fighter steal some things and get some hide to hide around, but (D and D definitionally) you're not a rogue or anywhere near the class because you havn't gained the abilities that are preagreed that all roguish characters have.


What you're asking is, why do the rules do this why can't we just do what we want to do. And by all means if its your game and if you want to put the chance money under free parking then you can do whatever you wish. But, if you play by the rules hten you got to follow the rules and understand why the rules are there and written.

This reminds of a time i went to a game convention and there was this guy there wanting people to play his "new rpg". His pitch was aweful. You can do whatever you want, you're not limited to classes or races. Whatever you want you can do. He had wrote up rules for osme of the things you suggested. Well without rules there's no challenge. Heck its not even a game. If you want to build a character I say stay within the confines of the game wheather its for character background or power playing. If there are rules to play a rogue follow them. IF ther are rules to play a dragon knight follow them.

There are so many rules in d and d that are questionable, but when you start questioning the very basic stuff like base classes, you're probably playing the wrong system.

 

[iwatt]

What you're asking is, why do the rules do this why can't we just do what we want to do. And by all means if its your game and if you want to put the chance money under free parking then you can do whatever you wish. But, if you play by the rules hten you got to follow the rules and understand why the rules are there and written.

I think we're having a problem communicating here.

Were exactly did I say that I've changed the rules?

All I've said is that:

you can be a thief without being a rogue.

you can be a "Wild warrior from the Frozen Tundra" (i.e someone from a "barbarian" tribe) without taking the barbarian class.

You can even be known as a "warrior" without taking the lame NPC class.

You can say you're a Noble without taking the aristocrat NPC class.

You can even say you're a Hammer of Moradin, and all you have to be is a cleric/monk/paladin/ranger from Citadel Adbar, legitimately enrolled in the order. Youd don't have to be able to throw returning warhammers.

There's a difference between labels that define abilities (i.e. class names) and a character concept.

.... but when you start questioning the very basic stuff like base classes, you're probably playing the wrong system.

Once again you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not questioning base classes. I'm questioning blind adherence to "labeling" that leads some DMs and players to multiclass or take prestige classes just beacuse of their name.


EDIT POST: I'm not going to add any new responses for a while because I've just attained a powerful post count number ...... see ya tomorrow

 

[Celebrim]

you can be a thief without being a rogue.

Continuing in that vein.

You can be a bard without being a Bard.
You can be a monk without being a Monk.
You can be an assassin without being an Assassin.
You can be a duelist without being a Duelist.
You can be an archmage without being an Archmage.
You can be an aristocrat without being an Aristocrat.
You can be a commoner without being a Commoner.
If you live in a society ruled by Wizards, its likely that if you are an aristocrat you are not an Aristocrat.
If you live in a theocracy, its likely that if you are an aristocrat that you are not an Aristocrat.
Heck, if you live in a plutocracy, its more likely that the aristocracy is rogues and experts than it is that they are Aristocrats.

The gambler, the rake, the merchant, the aristocrat, the diplomat, the con artist, the smuggler, the detective, the courtier, the bounty hunter, the pirate, the scribe, the locksmith, the scout, the messenger, the actor, the lawyer, the spy, the bouncer, and heck even the miller might all be rogues. Or, they might not. They might be experts, or something else. The thief could be an expert, a rogue, an aristocrat, a ranger, or a fighter. One doesn't imply the other, being a criminal doesn't imply being a rogue any more than being a rogue implies being a criminal.

We don't need a separate class for each profession, and if we are tempted to make a separate class because an existing one doesn't fit then it implies that there is a problem with the flexibility of our base classes.

Class is something that exists in the game. It's a rules convention. It's not something which ought to exist in a tangible form in the game universe, but is merely an abstraction of the reality of the game universe. In the real world, people don't have classes.

I want a game universe in which 'Dread Pirate' implies that the person is a fearsome scourge of the seas - whether that person is a cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard or whatever - and implies nothing about his abilities at all. I don't want a game universe in which every 'Dread Pirate' has basically the same abilities, or even has to acquire the same set of abilities to gain the title 'Dread Pirate'. If you start looking at the world as if every X is defined by a shared set of abilities and not a shared concept, then yes it is limiting creativity.

 

[DonTadow]

I think we're having a problem communicating here.

Were exactly did I say that I've changed the rules?

All I've said is that:

you can be a thief without being a rogue.

you can be a "Wild warrior from the Frozen Tundra" (i.e someone from a "barbarian" tribe) without taking the barbarian class.

You can even be known as a "warrior" without taking the lame NPC class.

You can say you're a Noble without taking the aristocrat NPC class.

You can even say you're a Hammer of Moradin, and all you have to be is a cleric/monk/paladin/ranger from Citadel Adbar, legitimately enrolled in the order. Youd don't have to be able to throw returning warhammers.

There's a difference between labels that define abilities (i.e. class names) and a character concept.



Once again you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not questioning base classes. I'm questioning blind adherence to "labeling" that leads some DMs and players to multiclass or take prestige classes just beacuse of their name.


EDIT POST: I'm not going to add any new responses for a while because I've just attained a powerful post count number ...... see ya tomorrow

It is no doubt unusual that that this post is the most evil post I've read .

Seriously, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I apologize if that is what it seems. And I don't think we're miscommunicating only thinking differently. I understand what you're saying. You're speaking theoretically. You're saying if the feats and background history push this person into that direction why can't we call that without having a prestige or base class that specifically labels and pigeon holds you to that when the story fits. And to follow to what Cerrbrulm just said, you can do that. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. What you're doing is considered "broad interpretation" (damn left wingers ) of the rules similar to the divide in how we interpret the constitution.

But I"m considering "strict interpretation of the rules." My strict interpretation says you want to be a thief, be a rogue. YOu want to be a monk, be a monk. You want to be a monkey open up the MM. If you put rogue as one of your classes then you have to have some background to explain that part. Because it is important that everyone is on the same page in a game, it is important for my players that when i tell that Bob is a proff thief they know bob has some rogue abilities and may prime for a sneak attack. If Jim has many books on wizardy and the black arts he better have some magic missles tucked away some where. With everyone on the same page on the rules and no broad interpretation there are less means for confusion in the game.

So whose

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

My strict interpretation says you want to be a thief, be a rogue.

Why not a Bard? They have thieving skills. Rogue doesn't have ANYTHING that allows it exclusive access to being a thief. Or even a Fighter! Why can't a thief be a bully? That's still a thief, and not a Rogue.

YOu want to be a monk, be a monk.

What if my character is a clerical monk devoted to a deity? Then he's a Cleric, but he CALLS himself a Monk.

THAT is the point. Who cares what it says on your character sheet. Yes, those give you skills and a broad path to follow(less broad for Paladins...but that's not the point right now), but do your PCs really walk into town and say "I'm a Fighter, he's a Rogue, and this guy's a Wizard! We're here to kill the evil Blackguard!" ?

...wouldn't saying "I am a Sorcerer of the Ancient Order, and this is my bodyguard. The one standing behind you with a knife at your throat is my good friend. Now, would you like to tell me where the Demon lover is?" be able to decsribe the exact same characters?

 

[DonTadow]

Again when it ocmes to base classes I am talking strictly by the book, and the descriptions in the book. Those descriptions describe a class.

Take the class names away. If I have all 12 base classes descriptions in front of me, and i'ma newbiew trying to figure out what to play and i have in my head i want to play a thief I'm going to pick the rogue class.

I know wwe can make what we want whatever we want and we can write whatever background we want but if i'm going by the rules if i have monk traits i should have the monk class.

 

[Numenorean]

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?

In our 3.5e game we don't use prestige classes. We have several reasons. First off too many of them we find silly, or they don't fit the genre/theme of our campaign. Secondly in a good few cases we see them as munchkin tools, you get something for nearly nothing. Lastly like you mentioned we see them as crutches for either good role playing or shaping a core class to meet your need. However this is an individual opinion thing. There are however a couple prestige classes that we use on the NPC side such as the Blackguard and the Assassin.

The longer I play 3.5e the less hardcore my stance becomes on prestige classes. Although I still haven't found any yet that spark my interest ... outside of the Dervish *maybe*

Currently we don't use them except for the occasional NPC blackguard or assassin.