Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[Arc]

Personally, I don't see Prestige Classes as roleplaying aides, or special organizations/situations/etc. A decent imagination and some minor descriptive flavor can turn pretty much any class into whatever you want. What I really like about 3e is that the base classes are further removed from roleplaying stereotypes, so class determines mechanics, not personality.

In that way, Prestige Classes are a mechanical way of breaking the rules in a controlled fashion. Feats act much the same way, but don't require the same character investment, and don't take specific class levels to gain. Furthermore, if feats replaced PrC's entirely, then Fighter 20 would be the best way to go. Rather, Prestige Classes fill in gaps in the base classes (Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, Cerebromancer), give abilities unavailable otherwise (Archmage and Heirophant, as well as pretty much every other PrC available), and allow specialization in a specific combat type or action (Tempest and Exemplar, for example). They're a way to break the rules, but prevent (to a degree) the mixing and matching that feats provide. Sure, there are plenty of ways to cheese and optimize them, but they require a lot of work to do so, and the truly broken builds depend on very specific combinations (which designer's can't be expected to think of). So, I see the question as this: Do you want to allow exceptions to the rules? And how much flexibility do you want with the exceptions?

 

[ThirdWizard]

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

That's an odd statement. If you feel you can reach your character concept better without a prestige class, then don't take it. If you feel you can reach your character concept better with a prestige class then do take it.

I don't see the big prerequisites don't fit the character thing. Arcane Archers need a bunch of bow feats and ability to cast 1st level arcane spells. Arcane Tricksters need rogue skills and arcane casting ability. Archmages need some very focused feats and spells which make sense for the PrC. They make sense for the PrCs, but if they don't make sense for your character, then maybe your character shouldn't be that PrC. That's fine, not everyone needs a PrC as you point out.


A barbarian from the Beastlands in my game is going for the Bear Warrior PrC in Complete Warrior. It fits perfectly, and I've added it to the story, about how he has two spirits and he is trying to unleash his other nature to turn into a bear so that he can transform into the bear. It's a great roleplaying angle, and it has added a lot to the game - and he doesn't even have the PrC yet! Can he do that through multiclassing? No.

Also, he'll be the only person to take a PrC in a while. I can count on my hands the number of characters who have taken PrCs in our games since 3E came out. When players stop thinking of it as a necessity and instead as a tool (that is DM controlled) then things work much better.

 

[Crothian]

That's an odd statement. If you feel you can reach your character concept better without a prestige class, then don't take it. If you feel you can reach your character concept better with a prestige class then do take it.

I was referring to the example the other poster gave and not my own character.

I don't see the big prerequisites don't fit the character thing. Arcane Archers need a bunch of bow feats and ability to cast 1st level arcane spells. Arcane Tricksters need rogue skills and arcane casting ability. Archmages need some very focused feats and spells which make sense for the PrC. They make sense for the PrCs, but if they don't make sense for your character, then maybe your character shouldn't be that PrC. That's fine, not everyone needs a PrC as you point out.

Some like the examples you field do make fine sense. Others though do not. I look at it on a case by case basis.

 

[Psion]

I'll say no.

It does make decisions for you, but then, generally they offer you more choice than just sticking with the base class. They are inherently someone elses creation (unless you roll your own), but there is still generally room for you to make your own spins on the specific character concept. Not all arcane archers (or whatever) are the same.

Like any other character option in the game, it is something you could build on, a schtick, which you might not have realized yourself. I am enamored with the Dragon Mages and Jewel Mages of Bastion's Spells & Magic. I brewed those together with the concept that in a magical society, those who wield magic would bubble to major leadership positions. This was the impetus for me to create two cities for my planar games that had bodies of magic users at their heads that were more than just another wizard's guild, and gave me a bunch of adventure ideas related to the ideas which make up these classes... for example, explaining why the Dragon Mages are at odds with the Planar Trade Combine, and why in the Jeweled city, commoners typically wear hoods.

A creative prestige class is fertile ground for extrapolation.

 

[Klaus]

I'll have to agree with Nifft. Blind adherence to the rules curb creativity. If a player wants a PrClass and thinks the Requirements make no sense, talk to the DM and offer alternative Requirements that retain the entry level of the class, yet make more sense for your character concept.

After all, this is a RPG where you can plead your case to the DM, not a CRPG where you are limited by what's programmed into the computer.

 

[Felon]

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

LOL. Yep, you can easily achieve much poorer results with the core classes than with the PrC. Multi-classing will easily allow you to build a pitiful, ineffective character, but who's to say effectivenes was what the original poster was going for?

But there's the trick to it. When a PrC offers a way to design characters that the core classes don't handle well, if at all, then they serve a good purpose. But they get saddled with a concept, then they get constraining. I have a Scout that I'm building towards the Dervish PrC. I want him to be a human cuisinart (well, an elven cuisinart actually). Do I really want my scout to expend finite skill points to get ranks in Perform (dance)? No. Can you justify the ability to move more than five feet and get a full round of attacks that doesn't require dancing skill? Sure. But someone decided to clamp a trace of concept onto a class that's largely devoid of it. Very annoying.

Then again, fluff-lovers rant on this board all the time when a book offers PrC's that don't impose a specific concept or organization. They complain about PrC's being shameless, empty vehicles for gaining new abilities. Blame them.

 

[Crothian]

LOL. Yep, you can easily achieve much poorer results with the core classes than with the PrC. Multi-classing will easily allow you to build a pitiful, ineffective character, but who's to say effectivenes was what the original poster was going for?

I can say what the orginal poster is going for. He is me . THis is not about making "effective" characters. I've found that so called sub par characters can do just fine. In 3.0 I played a half elf ranger and was perfectly fine next to the Wizard and Cleric and rogue and fighter. In mky experience characters are not pitiful and ineffective as much as players are.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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

That's hyperbole. The concept is actually pretty cool.

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...)

I agree with this to an extent, minus the blanket generalization (there are a lot of bad PrC's, but that doesn't mean they're all bad) but the fault - if fault it is - lies in the implementation of the concept rather than the concept itself.

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'.

There is nothing wrong with an abundance of choices. However, that said, I've also made the argument that the judicious use of feats, skills, and multiclassing obviate many PrC's.

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."

I feel PrC's are a good tool for a DM to personalize his campaign, but I also feel that about feats, monsters, etc.

Overall, my opinion is this: on one hand, many gamers don't take advantage of, or even realize the implications of, the customization that is possible with 3e, and use PrC's as a quick and (often) dirty way to create the character concept they want. On the other hand - why is that so bad? The game is supposed to be fun, and many gamers simply don't have the time to sit around and map out a character's career path. If PrC's speed up the process so that the fun of playing is gotten to more quickly, then I don't see how they're bad. OK, so many PrC's suck; again, what of it? You don't have to use them, and their use in the games of others has no bearing upon you whatsoever. They can be easily ignored. If you don't like that they take up space in books you own, well, everything can't be tailor-made for the individual, despite what modern society tries to tell us. Plenty of gamers, myself included, like PrC's as a concept, and don't mind seeing some in a given book.

But, after all that, I will say that I don't like how much space is taken up by PrC's in many books - I will agree that much more thought should be put into creating them, which would reduce the quantity and increase the quality. I would like to see a return of the kind of articles James Wyatt was writing in Dragon soon after 3e was released, in which he showed how various character concepts could be implemented with the method that others and myself have mentioned in this thread - choice of feats, skills, and multiclassing. Seeing this kind of material in WotC(and other publisher)'s books would be welcome, and could reduce the space PrC's take up.

 

[Len]

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.

So how does that curb your creativity? Whether or not that undesirable prestige class exists, you end up making a straight wizard. Your creative options are less now because...?

 

[Felon]

I can say what the orginal poster is going for. He is me .

To clarify, "the original poster" being a reference to Len, the guy you whose post you initially replied to.

THis is not about making "effective" characters. I've found that so called sub par characters can do just fine. In 3.0 I played a half elf ranger and was perfectly fine next to the Wizard and Cleric and rogue and fighter. In mky experience characters are not pitiful and ineffective as much as players are.

No, sorry. That's just a platitude. A Wiz 10/Clr 10 is quantifiably inferior next to a Wiz 20 or Clr 20, and certainly more pitiful than a Mystic Theurge with 20 levels.

Not sure what you're talking about in your example either. So you had a half-elf ranger. So what? As much folks might grouse about getting a +2 to this aiblity score or the other, +0 races don't add much effectiveness one way or the other. Well, except maybe for dwarves cause they're broken.

EDIT--And it is about making "effective' characters, as most concepts generally do at least implicitly require that the character actually be formidable in some respect.