Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[DonTadow]

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



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



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.

YOu speak of miulitclassing as if there are no penalties to it. Losing 20 percent of XP is not what alot of pcs want to do.

 

[Crothian]

YOu speak of miulitclassing as if there are no penalties to it. Losing 20 percent of XP is not what alot of pcs want to do.

There can be no penalty. It depends on the race. Plus ignoring those penalities is a rather common house rule. And in the example give of wizard 10/cleric 10 there would be no penalty as long as the classes were kept equal.

So, yes I do speak of it as if there is no penalty buecause most of the time there isn't.

 

[Celebrim]

The basic argument in favor of all PrC's is that somehow the flavor that they add is beneficial to role playing. Yet, the evidence that is always provided for this argument is based around mechanics.

Simply put, I think the problem with PrC's is that they encourage players to want to get something for nothing. Prestige classes are in general either more powerful than base classes, or else no PC ever takes one. All popular PrC's either give full attack progression and more feats and/or skills per level than a fighter, or else give full spell progression but more feats and/or skills than a base spell caster. There is no popular PrC that could not be equally done by making available equivalent feats instead of class abilities and appropriate multiclassing. What makes PrC's more attractive than that is simply that PrC's get more class abilities and other extras than base classes get feats. If you convert PrC's into an array of feats you soon realize that the primary thing that makes a PrC interesting is that its more powerful than the base class. If they were not more powerful than the base class, PC's in general simply wouldn't take them no matter how flavorful that they were. And the few that would take them would quickly become disenchanted with them because they put your character in a straight jacket.

One of the complaints often made against fantasy and science fiction in general is that the fantastic races in those stories are often represented as a single character and that often as not that character carries the personality of the entire race, so that every character of that race becomes only a minor variation on that character. To me, PrC's have this problem. In general, PrC's are attached to so much fluff, that there is often effectively only one character of each PrC. D&D has been gradually moving away from that model, so that there is now in D&D certainly not only one fighter, one cleric, one rogue, and one wizard. The mechanical diversity of these classes encourages creativity on the part of even the most inexperienced role players in a way that the rigid first edition mechanics did not. But one thing that PrC's most certainly are not is mechanically diverse, and that - especially in inexperienced role players - encourages them to think only inside the box.

When D&D came out, one of the first complaints made against it was that your character was defined solely in terms of what he could do. Early attempts to depart from D&D, say like C&S, tried to make your character more than merely the mechanics of what he could do in order to encourage actual role playing rather than or in addition to problem solving and other sorts of tactical gaming. D&D has come along way from its roots, but PrC's are a marked step backwards and they've caused alot of thought, creativity, and paper to be wasted on something that isn't actually good for the game. In essense, they are nothing more than a magic item that a player is encouraged to feel that they can give themselves.

 

[DonTadow]

There can be no penalty. It depends on the race. Plus ignoring those penalities is a rather common house rule. And in the example give of wizard 10/cleric 10 there would be no penalty as long as the classes were kept equal.

So, yes I do speak of it as if there is no penalty buecause most of the time there isn't.

To say most people ignore it as a houserule is a big assumption. I don't and I don't know any DM's i play with whom don't. Once you start ignoring rules it can unbalance other areas of the game, which may be the problem some are having with prestige classes.

The multiclassing is balances by being forced to keep things equal, the xp penality for not keeping it equal and that certain races are restricted to certain favored classes for multiclassing. All that sounds A LOT more restricting that some skill and base attack requirements for prestige classes.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

More a problem with the system than prestige classes themselves, I really dislike how 3.x makes character classes so bland and uninteresting. Repetitive abilities and bonus feats really get old by 10th level. Why wouldn't a player want to prestige in a system like this? There's simply no reward for remaining in a character class longer than mid-levels.

It might seem that PrCs curb creativity because there's one for every concept under the sun. There are even PrCs that cover concepts within concepts. There's just not a lot of customization with the earlier classes. Fighters probably have their core feats by 8th level, wizards can pick up full casting progression in any number PrCs, and sacrificing 5d6 sneak attack for some complementary abilities is pretty nice.

I still think prestige classes are "a nice way to reward and develop character," but there is a such a glut of them. I don't want each and every one of my players to feel that they have to take a PrC to compete, nor do I want to feel that way as a player. The idea itself is still a good one, but I think many of us believe that PrCs should be supplementary and optional, not necessary. I haven't purchased a Wizard's DnD book for quite some time, but every single one that I have has Prestige Classes. There's absolutely no exception as far as I can tell, and that says something to me. There's a disconnect between what we want from PrCs and what the Wizard's folks believe we want. That's the problem as I see it, and that's why a system like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved appealed to me so much. Sure, it has PrCs, but when I look at the base classes in the book, I know that I have to choose: in order to fulfill my character concept (taking a PrC), I have to give up this excellent base class ability. 3.5's base classes don't offer much of a sacrifice. Multiclassing should always be about choice and not power; fulfill a concept, become more specialized, but lose out on higher level abilities.

 

[Crothian]

To say most people ignore it as a houserule is a big assumption. I don't and I don't know any DM's i play with whom don't. Once you start ignoring rules it can unbalance other areas of the game, which may be the problem some are having with prestige classes.

Rather common and most people are not the same thing. My data is based on a poll done here a few months ago. But I'm curious how getting rid of impacts prestige classes. It would allow people to muti class easier and perhaps more often so they might not need prestige classes.

 

[DonTadow]

The basic argument in favor of all PrC's is that somehow the flavor that they add is beneficial to role playing. Yet, the evidence that is always provided for this argument is based around mechanics.

Simply put, I think the problem with PrC's is that they encourage players to want to get something for nothing. Prestige classes are in general either more powerful than base classes, or else no PC ever takes one. All popular PrC's either give full attack progression and more feats and/or skills per level than a fighter, or else give full spell progression but more feats and/or skills than a base spell caster. There is no popular PrC that could not be equally done by making available equivalent feats instead of class abilities and appropriate multiclassing. What makes PrC's more attractive than that is simply that PrC's get more class abilities and other extras than base classes get feats. If you convert PrC's into an array of feats you soon realize that the primary thing that makes a PrC interesting is that its more powerful than the base class. If they were not more powerful than the base class, PC's in general simply wouldn't take them no matter how flavorful that they were. And the few that would take them would quickly become disenchanted with them because they put your character in a straight jacket.

One of the complaints often made against fantasy and science fiction in general is that the fantastic races in those stories are often represented as a single character and that often as not that character carries the personality of the entire race, so that every character of that race becomes only a minor variation on that character. To me, PrC's have this problem. In general, PrC's are attached to so much fluff, that there is often effectively only one character of each PrC. D&D has been gradually moving away from that model, so that there is now in D&D certainly not only one fighter, one cleric, one rogue, and one wizard. The mechanical diversity of these classes encourages creativity on the part of even the most inexperienced role players in a way that the rigid first edition mechanics did not. But one thing that PrC's most certainly are not is mechanically diverse, and that - especially in inexperienced role players - encourages them to think only inside the box.

When D&D came out, one of the first complaints made against it was that your character was defined solely in terms of what he could do. Early attempts to depart from D&D, say like C&S, tried to make your character more than merely the mechanics of what he could do in order to encourage actual role playing rather than or in addition to problem solving and other sorts of tactical gaming. D&D has come along way from its roots, but PrC's are a marked step backwards and they've caused alot of thought, creativity, and paper to be wasted on something that isn't actually good for the game. In essense, they are nothing more than a magic item that a player is encouraged to feel that they can give themselves.

I'd after differ from this assumption of the argument so far. The basic argument for prestiges from what I gather is that they both provide role playing experiences AS WELL AS fill niches that are missing from the base classes.

I don't know of too many prestiges that can be done by combining the base class with feats or skills. I'd love to see some examples of this. My look at prestige classes is that for giving up something the base classes give you, you get something else. I see prestige classes as alternative base classes. It reminds me of MMORPGs. After you get to a certain level, its time to get more specific. Yes it is nice that you are a rogue, but now you have th e option of having a prestige class that more defines you. SURE you could put some skills in diplomacy and such, but why gain abilities you no longer wish for when you can easily switch to a prc that better defines what you want the character to be.

I"m hearing a lot of what PRcs aren't to the game, they aren't creative, they aren't good, they are the bane of the game. But not what they are and do:

1. They are great goal drivers for players. This is my favorite reason for prestige classes as they push characters to strive for something more than what they currently are. HOw is this not great for new players? It keeps newbies in the game longer because they have a goal. They ahve a reasonfor gaining experience and they have a reason to really get into role playing. Especially whenthe DM puts ingame requirements on gaining the prestige by having them go to a specific location or do a specific meditation.

2. They specify characters. AGain, i require my players to pick one after eight level and by the latest tenth level. Otherwise, its like floating through college and not picking a major. Prestige classes help players more define their base class more than feats and skills can. There are a TON of special abilities for prestige classes that are just not in feats and skills. Again I ask for evidience, to prove that a prestige can be created using just feats. "i'm talking base attack, saves, and special abilities.

3. They are great ways to create great role playing content, and ideas for DMs. I have NEVER opened up a prestige class and saw a bunch of mechanics. If you do see this, you mightwant to reread the paragraphs (at least the wotc stuff) that comes before it. Alot of the time its full of great flavor. I've created entire communities surrounding certiain prestiges and created wonderful layers of hierchy by using two or three prestige classes.

4. In real life, a person IS defined by what they do so why not in a game. What you do is a big part of your character. Again with the rogue example, If i'm a diplomate, I want more diplomat type abilties. Sneak attacking 4d6 is not really defining who i am. Yes I COULD just put alot of skills in diplomacy, bluff forgery and go with the diplomacy angle, but why? when I can flip open to a prestige class "Noble" (New blackmoor book) and have something that truly fits my character.

I"m pretty sure if they are so much the bane of the game, they wouldn't be included in EVERY single d20 text that comes out. HOnestly, i think its overkill at times, but it does show how importantthey are to the game. I don't think anything can limit creativity. A person only limits creativty themselves when they fear looking beyond the veil.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Uhm, in the generic example of a human wizard/cleric, there is never going to be an exp penalty, since humans can choose any class to be favoured. Favoured meaning you ignore that class for the purposes of multiclassing penalties. Elves can pull the same stunt with wizard/cleric.

Also, I have noticed that a lot of PrC's are described as extremely rare combinations or ideas - for example, I read about a PrC for eberron warforged where he becomes more and more human, eventually losing all warforged related benefits. Things like that are difficult to represent in a class system, so I regard them as useful for that reason. Generic 'wizard but cooler' PrC's may not have much use, but PrC's that focus around very specific ideas that would be hard to achieve in D&D normally have worth. Being able to explore a chosen sub-sub-speciality in return for restricted growth is a fair tradeoff I suppose.

Of course, I use classless systems usually, which means there is no actual need for the very idea of PrCs.

 

[DonTadow]

Rather common and most people are not the same thing. My data is based on a poll done here a few months ago. But I'm curious how getting rid of impacts prestige classes. It would allow people to muti class easier and perhaps more often so they might not need prestige classes.

But we enworlders are hardcore fans most of which have been playing since 1st edition. So I rarely take polls on here for face value as they don't represent the typical DM only us hardcore nuts whom debate on Saturdays .

But I doubte getting rid of prestiges will increase multi classing because prestiges, the marjority, are not about combining classes butfurther defining niches in a class. Now, unless wotc came out with a base class system whre as you go further in your class, you can become more defined then I'd be all for it. Prestige's's would be useless and woudl probably be more devoted towards cultures and such.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm curious what kind of rules people need to use to emulate a character concept. Back in the earlier editions, I didn't notice a problem with people fulfilling character concepts, and there were even less player options back then. Surely with more options it will be easier to fulfill any roles desired. Especially since you don't have to drop ranks into skills to be good at them, you just need the ability score and Take 10 rules.