Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[S'mon]

The criticisms seem to be mostly about the prereqs which railroad how you develop your PC. Personally I'm not a big fan of PrCs and very rarely use them for NPCs. I' rather adjust the core classes so eg elf Fighter-Wizards become viable again, rather than apply some sword-spelling PrC. The biggest use I've seen for PrCs is to give Fighter types more 'oomph' at high levels (11+), spellcasting PrCs are usually unnecessary, and overpowered if they give full casting advancement on top of their benefits.

 

[DonTadow]

Short answer, "Yes."

Long answer, "Prestige Classes where the worst design decision in 3rd edition. They curb personification, tend to promote stereotyping, are generally unbalanced and unbalancing, probably cannot be playtested extensively, and represent a step backwards in character creation in that they are much closer to the 1st edition notion that every distinct set of skills needs to be represented by a unique class (Archer, thief, alchemist, mariner, blacksmith, cook...) Third editions flexible base classes, multiclassing, skill system, and feats were designed to elimenate that problem - instead PrC's have made the problem in the extreme cases worse than ever. How many scores if not hundreds of PrC's are out there now? PrC's are an inelegant solution to a rather simple problem. We already have an elegant solution to that problem and its called a 'feat'.

What makes the flaw they represent it even worse is that players have come to see PrC's as being some that they have control over and that taking a PrC is no different than taking a feat or assigning skill points. The PrC's aren't in the DMG for nothing. At best, PrC's are a great way for a DM to create a large organization of identical faceless mooks. At worst, they are an almost limitless buffet where min/max powergamers can load up on front ended, unplaytested power, gain free bonus feats, and in general up thier characters effective CR for a given level."

With the abundance of prestige classes, I can't see how you can come to this decision. I've seen bad prestige classes and I've seen great ones. For every one balanced one I've seen one unbalanced one. It's a pick and choose field. The WOTC ones are usually balanced with the rest of the core material so there's no problem there.

Prestige classes help define a character. THe majority of the ones I've run into at have prereqs that make sense. They also often balance the cr rating out. The reason the prestige clases are in the DMG is because they are meant for advance players and not beginners.

I've seen prestige's used to enhance role playing and provide character's with a more specific purpose in life. I require my players to have some type of prestige at 10th level. I guess I need to see a lot of evidience supporting these "worst design ever" with prestige class other than its not fare.

 

[Crothian]

Do core classes curb creativity? If I wanted to make a character that can cast arcane and divine spells, straight wizard or cleric wouldn't let me build the character I envision. The Mystic Theurge prestige class would be just the thing.

While one class doesn't fit the bill, multi classing between th e two does. You can easily build the character with core classes.

On the other hand, prestige classes can provide opportunities for more creativity. For example, my DM had to make up various side quests and disgusting rituals for my Shadowdancer character to perform as he advanced through the Guild hierarchy.

The DM didn't have to, he choose to. I can do the same with any base class as well.

I don't see your problem as a "creativity" issue. I mean, putting all those prestige classes in 3e hasn't curbed your ability to make an interesting wizard. It's just that they just haven't published a prestige class that matches your character concept. Too bad. Be a straight wizard, and don't succumb to "prestige envy".

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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Likewise, I don't see them as a limit on creativity. If the prestige classes are well-designed* then they shouldn't require much beyond what the character would already take.

There was a game I ran where one character was a horse-nomad, in the saddle from a young age. I designed a prestige class for characters like him (based on the riding and fighting style of his native region). Animal Affinity was a natural requirement: Keldrians love their horses like brothers. Having finished the prestige class I showed it to the player, who had already selected (at 1st or 3rd level) that feat because it was appropriate for the character. I was looking for a feat that would balance the class, yes, but mainly for one that was appropriate. The player didn't take the feat to qualify for the class (he couldn't have, it wasn't written when he took it) and I didn't write the class to match what he took (I didn't know what feats he had).

* If the prestige classes aren't well-designed, it behooves the DM to not allow them in his/her campaign. Personally, as a DM, I design many prestige classes so that good principles are adhered to and to build my world; they're a great tool.

 

[Crothian]

Likewise, I don't see them as a limit on creativity. If the prestige classes are well-designed* then they shouldn't require much beyond what the character would already take.

I would usually agree. I've had greeat luck with prestige classes in my games. However, every know and then you get one that just doesn't fit exactly. And I have no problem going to the DM and asking hiom to alter things, I did that in this case. It is just sometimes I feel I have to alter a character idea to fit in the pre made class that fits what I am doing. Sometimes the fluff of the class fits where the mechanics do not.

 

[S'mon]

Personally, as a DM, I design many prestige classes so that good principles are adhered to and to build my world; they're a great tool.

I've seen this said before, but I can't really see how this is. I have all kinds of organisations in my game, but I don't see the benefit of creating Prestige Classes for them. It would mean a lot more work for me as GM if I were statting out Thrinian Knights as a Thrinian Knight PrC instead of Fighter, or Blue Light Wizards as a Blue Light PrC instead of just Wizard. When player characters join such organisations in my game it's not to get their mitts on PrC abilities - obviously, because how would the PC know the details of the PrC before joining the organisation? So to me PrCs don't make sense as a world-building tool; I only use them to denote exceptional individuals, not for every member of Order XYZ.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It is just sometimes I feel I have to alter a character idea to fit in the pre made class that fits what I am doing. Sometimes the fluff of the class fits where the mechanics do not.

As I said, it is the responsibility of the DM to ensure that the classes (prestige and otherwise) and appropriate, well-designed, and fitting.

I don't like classes with a lot of fluff attached because I, as DM, like to design my own so it fits my world, or else keep it generic so it can fit many different character concepts (like the core 11 base classes).

In general, if the 'fluff' fits but the mechanics don't, don't take the class -- apply the 'fluff' to another class as appropriate. This can be done as a player not just a DM.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've seen this said before, but I can't really see how this is. I have all kinds of organisations in my game, but I don't see the benefit of creating Prestige Classes for them. It would mean a lot more work for me as GM if I were statting out Thrinian Knights as a Thrinian Knight PrC instead of Fighter, or Blue Light Wizards as a Blue Light PrC instead of just Wizard. When player characters join such organisations in my game it's not to get their mitts on PrC abilities - obviously, because how would the PC know the details of the PrC before joining the organisation? So to me PrCs don't make sense as a world-building tool; I only use them to denote exceptional individuals, not for every member of Order XYZ.

Who said anything about changing existing characters, or about organizations? Very few organizations in my campaign world have associated prestige classes, and even those that do have many more members who have no levels than those who do. Prestige classes are good fo special concepts, but the idea of using them for every rank-and-file member of almost every organization on the world is just silly (no offense).

 

[S'mon]

Who said anything about changing existing characters, or about organizations? Very few organizations in my campaign world have associated prestige classes, and even those that do have many more members who have no levels than those who do. Prestige classes are good fo special concepts, but the idea of using them for every rank-and-file member of almost every organization on the world is just silly (no offense).

OK, we may be in agreement then. What kind of special concepts do you mean? I use PrCS for N/PCs like "The Chosen One of the God", the "Living Legend" and such, eg a player developed a Warlord PrC for level 11+ that fits his PC very well and I used a couple of Mongoose PrCs that had level 16+ requirements. I'll probably be seeing the Assassin and Houri Prestige Classes taken by PCs in my current campaign to fit their character concepts, and that's ok. I guess the only PrCs I really hate are the mundane "Guild Thief" type PrCs or the "here's a way to fix a broken bit in the rules" PrC like Mystic Theurge - my least favourite PrC _ever_.

 

[ajanders]

Long answer, "Prestige Classes where the worst design decision in 3rd edition.

That's a bold, bold statement. Can we talk bards and the fighter skill list?

They curb personification, tend to promote stereotyping, are generally unbalanced and unbalancing, probably cannot be playtested extensively, and represent a step backwards in character creation in that they are much closer to the 1st edition notion that every distinct set of skills needs to be represented by a unique class (Archer, thief, alchemist, mariner, blacksmith, cook...)

"Curb personification" not so much help in terms of actual meaning. If you mean "Replace the character's personality with mechanics", not really. Very few prestige classes include a code of honor or require the character to do or not do an action as part of their requirements, hence have very little direct affect on a character's personality.
The notion that a prestige class should be equivalent to a standard class is also ridiculous -- consider applying that logic to feats: it implies Dodge should equivalent in power to Improved Critical. It's not. Why? Because it's easier to get Dodge than Improved Critical.
It further implies Dodge should be equivalent in power to Skill Focus, and it's not either. Any mook can get Skill Focus, but only the exceptional can get Dodge.
In the same fashion, Prestige Classes should be more powerful than regular classes because anyone can be a fighter...you actually have to work to become a sword-saint, or a Knight of the Table Round, or a Bright Vanguard.
In a similar vein, I don't know how you playtest a prestige class at all...but I don't know how you playtest a base class, either, or balance it. In a political campaign, characters with social skills will shine, fighters, not so much. In a dungeon campaign, the bard with Diplomacy sits around and wonders why he wasted the skill points. In a tomb raid, the rogue may never sneak attack, but finds the traps and saves the party -- don't even ask me how you measure balance in that situation.
Prestige classes should specialize the general archetypes of the base classes, either around skills (like the warmaster or kensai) or organizations (The Swift Falcon dojo, L'academe de Guerre). Admittedly, some prestige classes do not. We mock them, and we call them bad prestige classes.
Similarly, the monster lists for d20 contain good monsters, like the barghest or the pistolwraith, and also contain bad monsters, like the explosion dog. We don't condemn the concept of monsters, we merely weed out the explosion dogs.

PrC's are an inelegant solution to a rather simple problem. We already have an elegant solution to that problem and its called a 'feat'.

I've tried representing archetype focus and organizations with feats. It's not that simple and it can be pretty inelegant, especially if you have a concept of the organization as a sequence. And that's with using the generic class variant out of UA where characters have lots of feat slots to play with: for standard 3.5, that locks a lot of people out of your "Prestige Feats" entirely.

What makes the flaw they represent it even worse is that players have come to see PrC's as being some that they have control over and that taking a PrC is no different than taking a feat or assigning skill points. The PrC's aren't in the DMG for nothing. At best, PrC's are a great way for a DM to create a large organization of identical faceless mooks. At worst, they are an almost limitless buffet where min/max powergamers can load up on front ended, unplaytested power, gain free bonus feats, and in general up thier characters effective CR for a given level."

This is mostly in the way you run your game: if your players want to add something to your game that you feel doesn't fit or is "too powerful", you need to work with them to solve it. The DMG was not written to tell you how to manage your player relationships.
If you don't like the players trying to get a PRC option, how do you handle unwelcome feat options? Do you eliminate feats in general, or just the unwanted feat?