Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

There. Now you can build a Shadow Dancer even without the PrC. Sure, you probably have to take at least a few levels of Rogue or a similar class, but 99% percent of the time you were going to do that anyway (at least I've never seen anyone present a Shadow Dancer on these boards that didn't). Of course, some of the abilities are rather weak, and in particular I'm think that Shadow Illusion and Shadow Mastery would probably work better if we combined them into one single feat (since each is probably only worth at most one half feat). What's more though is that if your concept doesn't include turning shadows into illusions, you can just skip that part, and if say you want to play a Sorcerous Shadow Dancer then you can make all the silent images you want using the normal spell abiities of that class and not have to give up your spell progression. In fact, go ahead and take the Umbran Bloodline feat, and get shadowy abilities added to your known spells.

The assumption was you would make a Shadowdancer without coming up with Feats that are the same class features. Use EXISTING feats to make the PrC. Or at least, that's what I assume you were planning on doing. Otherwise, its a pretty stupid thing to say because you can just take every class ability and turn it into a feat...but that can be done with all the Core Classes, too, so you're not proving a thing.

 

[Felon]

So techincally, why have base classes. Let's make a bunch of feats and as character's grow they get feats. Reduce the phb to a couple hundred pages of feats and call it a day?

The assumption was you would make a Shadowdancer without coming up with Feats that are the same class features. Use EXISTING feats to make the PrC. Or at least, that's what I assume you were planning on doing. Otherwise, its a pretty stupid thing to say because you can just take every class ability and turn it into a feat...but that can be done with all the Core Classes, too, so you're not proving a thing.

Yep, I don't know what Celeb's going on about.

It's kinda like I up and decide "why use dice when you can flip a coin?"

Sure you can come up with lots of reasons why flipping a coin is more cumbersome, but I'm invested in my anti-dice stance, so I'll just respond to yourr points about how the coin method is flawed with glib equivocation about how it doesn't make the game any more inadequate than it currently is.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think a big problem with all this is the paradigm that you are your class name.

Change the name "fighter" to samurai, knight, cavalier, legionaire, etc. and you can have a new feel with the same mechanics. Call your character an "elementalist", say he gets his powers from a connection with the elemental planes, choose spells based on the elements, and don't tell your fellow Players that the actual class is sorcerer.

This is especially true with mutliclassing. Think "pirate" instead of "rogue/fighter". Or "skald" instead of "bard/barbarian".

So many prestige classes and new core classes are merely role playable names with a new mechanic.

Edit: And many prestige classes are merely new gimmicks with no real mechanical or role play need, re: shadowdancer.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

And some of y'all have number 100 on the DMG chart of one hundred random character traits.

Quasqueton

 

[Felon]

I think a big problem with all this is the paradigm that you are your class name. Change the name "fighter" to samurai, knight, cavalier, legionaire, etc. and you can have a new feel with the same mechanics.

With different class skills, maybe different skill point and hit dice allotments, maybe different saving throws.

This is especially true with mutliclassing. Think "pirate" instead of "rogue/fighter". Or "skald" instead of "bard/barbarian".

Now those adjustments to skills, hit dice, hit dice, and saving throws really go off the wall.

EDIT--I take it from your shift in arguement, you've conceded on the matter of the XP penalty. Very good then.

 

[Quasqueton]

EDIT--I take it from your shift in arguement, you've conceded on the matter of the XP penalty. Very good then.

I was not making an "argument" for it. It was a jest, even though everything I said about the xp penalty is true and documented (or rather, technically, undocumented).

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

As I don't have prestige classes at all in my campaign (that's how I solved the issue), I don't have a personal care about the resolution of this whole debate. Just consider my first "point" as jest, and my second "point" as a parallel (to the main issue) thought.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Or maybe I'm just boosting my post count.

<thinks about making a seperate post to say:>

Or maybe its just that I'm so very tired at midnight.

<thinks about making yet another post to say:>

I'm going to bed now. I may not respond anymore till Monday or Tuesday.

<thinks about making one last post before going to bed to say:>

Or I may not post in this thread anymore at all.

<reconsiders post spiking>

Quasqueton

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) Let me first state that I love D20.

2) I prefer HERO and Mutants & Masterminds. Why? Infinite flexibility.

The closest D&D came to this was in the 2Ed Player's Option stuff. When 3Ed was announced, I hoped they'd use Player's Option as a launch point. They didn't.

Personally, PrCls are both curbs and enhancers to creativity. Like someone else said, if you just assembled the feats, skils, powers, etc., and let people build their characters out of those, you'd be able to build any PC concept you want without PrCl's. But WoTC didn't, so you can't.

PrCl's at least open up possibilities, especially to players who don't have the time to learn the intricacies of the system to the point of warping reality...just like Kits did. (There, I said it!)

However, by the very nature of D20, they still restrict the options of the truly creative.

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.

That statement is offensive and erroneous. Were you to examine my PC catalog, especially those from other systems, you'd see you were in error. But I'll just go back to 2Ed's Player's Option era.

I had a character concept: a Cleric/Warrior type based on heroes from Finno/Russian Mythology. Those guys had many interesting magical powers, but they didn't deal with undead much. I used Players Option to create him. My PC was able to cast MANY Spheres of spells-and even Wizard Abjuration Spells- in full armor, but only 3 on his TOTAL list (projected out over 20 levels) were offensive- he was to buff his allies and help the downtrodden, not destroy his enemies. Despite being a cleric, he couldn't turn undead, but could inspire rage. He fought almost as well as a fighter with his scale mail, Longbow, Great-Axe and Maul, and because of his tribal background, could track as well as a Ranger of equivalent level. His singing skill was impressive and inspirational, but not magical.

At first level.

I cannot make that PC in 3Ed using core classes alone-perhaps not at all. Wizard levels, even as a specialist, would add offensive spells that no Finno/Russian hero ever cast, and the Bard list completely misses the point of this character (except for the singing). The Scale Mail would impede his arcane spellcasting. No core rule exists for substituting Turn Undead with other abilities, and the current Domain system eliminated at least half of the clerical spells that fit the concept, while adding many that didn't. Even the Gestalt rules would result in an overpowered version of this character concept.

Then there was my 1st level Albino Minotaur Ftr/Mage (Tu-Maa Ghostwalker) based on Native American mythology and culture...

In no way is it possible to play an armored spellcaster who is at home in his shell while casting spells wtihout resorting to rules outside of the norm.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

My problem with the whole bit about breaking the shadow dancer into a series of feats is that there aren't nearly enough feats to go around. 4 abilities + 3 prerequisites is 7 x 3 = 21 levels or so. Simply from a standpoint of the basic mechanics of the level progression system, it doesn't work.

I don't mind prestige classes overall, but then again we've never really had to deal with any of the problematic aspects of them. No one has come up with any abuses of them, or picked out the broken ones. I do dislike the 'x but better' style of prc's though. I like the ones that offer new or interesting abilities (or combinations) or very tight specilizations of exsisting areas. I also really like the short and sweet ones. 5 levels? Awesome. 3? Even better.

PRC's do alter the creative structure that character design/devlopment takes place in. Some might consider it a box that entraps. I think it's a lattice that helps ideas grow.