Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Yes. That's true, and no one's disputed that.

The point is that PCs aren't walking around with labels floating above them saying their class name and their level.

The class names have NO EFFECT on characters at all. Take them away, and its still the same class. Change the names and swap them around, and the Sorcerer is still exactly the same class. But it doesn't have a thing to do with the rules at all.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Strictly by the book, eh?

Ok, this is what my book says about rogues:

"Rogues share little in common with each other. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness."

Not all rogues are thieves. Not all thieves are rogues. That's been true since at least the 2nd edition thieves handbook.

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.

What in the world do you mean by 'traits'? Do you mean having 'flurry of blows'? If by 'traits' you mean 'class abilities', then yeah anyone with the class abilities of a class should probably be a class. If by traits you mean hermit who has focused on honing his body and mind, then we are talking about something that is external to the rules.

Since you made reference to constitutional law earlier, I'm going to take a stab at an analogy that might make sense to you. You've claimed that I haven't been strict enough in my interpretation of the text. I claim that you have failed the Madison standard of literalism, and that you are in fact trying to claim that the Preamble has the force of law when in fact it doesn't. The above quote that I made about Rogues is preamble. It is not 'the rules'. You can't claim rule authority based on the discussion, any more than you can claim constitutional authority based on the Preamble. Fluff is not crunch.

 

[Crothian]

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.

Some are silly, I find that if I trust the players I don't have to worry about the ones that might be "munchkin". But that's the nice thing I like about them, there are thousands. I don't have to allow them all, I don't want to allow them all. I do like that I can go through books and pick a dozen or two that fir the roles I need them to fit. THat's a good thing about them, they are not pokjimon I don't have to collect them all

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Have you considered creating prestige classes that would be suited for your game?

 

[cmanos]

wait until DMGII comes out. I believe there is a section in it on how to create your own PrC's.

The way I look at PrC's, if there happens to be one that is extremely close to what I see for my character, I'll work for it, otherwise I'll continue with the straight class. I have a Cleric of Strength who prefers to grapple. I looked at the Reaping Mauler and decided totally against it. I would need to throw 9 levels of skill points into cross class skills, or take 3 levels in a class I don't see the character going into just to become a grappler.

Talk to the DM. tell him what you see for your character and what you'd like to do with a PrC. See if you can come up with one.

C

 

[Ravellion]

Dragonlance Spoilers for Dragons of Spring Dawning coming up.

I once had a player who wanted to become the best ice mage of the land. He took the Elemental Savant PrCl.

Four months later he emailed me a home brewed PrCl he found on the net. It was called something like "the Master of Ice", not too unbalanced, but it had bad templating and was a bit on the powerful side (adding yet more DC to his Ice spells, which would add up with Elemental Savant and Spell Focus (+2) and Greater Spell Focus(+4)). It also had a once a day "Flesh to Ice" like ability. I said he couldn't take it. Big arguments ensued. He said "But I want to be the Master of Ice". I said "What do you need that class for then?". He didn't quite understand at first.

He was a Dragonlance Fan. I showed him some stats for Raistlin. I asked him "Is Raistlin the Master of Past and Present?". He got the point from then on.

Thing is, I know players like that are far from unique. So do PrCl stifle creativity? Well, they do for some people. He never thought of the idea to ask for a "Flesh to Ice" spell instead of his "Flesh to Stone". He never dubbed himself "The Master of Ice Eternal" or something like that.

And killing creativity for some people was enough of a reason for me to remove PrCl for most of my subsequent games.

Rav

 

[Dextolen]

For the most part, going the PrC route is a roleplaying choice. I think that most are less powerful than the generic kin that they most closly resemble. The trade off is a focus or flare for one or two situational enhancements.

If you are playing in an established world, I think they can be a great way to add a deeper dimension to the world. Using any old PrC in any campaign tends to lose the flavor of the class. In our current campaign "vanilla world" they tend to lose the roleplay aspect. In other campaigns they've been great.

 

[DonTadow]

Strictly by the book, eh?

Ok, this is what my book says about rogues:

"Rogues share little in common with each other. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness."

Not all rogues are thieves. Not all thieves are rogues. That's been true since at least the 2nd edition thieves handbook.

But all thieves are rogues. If I want ato play a thievish character then rogue's my class according to that description. It also suggests that those looking to play scout, infiltrator, spie, diplomat or thug should take rogue as well.

What in the world do you mean by 'traits'? Do you mean having 'flurry of blows'? If by 'traits' you mean 'class abilities', then yeah anyone with the class abilities of a class should probably be a class. If by traits you mean hermit who has focused on honing his body and mind, then we are talking about something that is external to the rules.

I'm not sure if I understand you here. By traits I mean that specific "career choices" in dungeosn and dragons have traits associated with those classes for purposes of clarity. A player can see particular moves in combat and know what type of character they are dealing with. Even if your background is a hermit whom hones his body his skills we'll show me that he's some type of monkish character.

Since you made reference to constitutional law earlier, I'm going to take a stab at an analogy that might make sense to you. You've claimed that I haven't been strict enough in my interpretation of the text. I claim that you have failed the Madison standard of literalism, and that you are in fact trying to claim that the Preamble has the force of law when in fact it doesn't. The above quote that I made about Rogues is preamble. It is not 'the rules'. You can't claim rule authority based on the discussion, any more than you can claim constitutional authority based on the Preamble. Fluff is not crunch.

We can play Hamilton vs. Madison for as long as the debate has taken place in this country. The PHB is the constitution of Dungeons and Dragons and with any document with such power arguments like such arise.

HOwever, we both agree that the document is written as it is. There is an introduction followed by chapters of rules. Claiming that any section after the introduction is only a preamble to the rules seems a bit to fictional to believe. The preamble of any book is clear. Preamble is simply an old word that means introduction from the latin word ambul or to walk. A preamble is a brief walk through of what is to come. It is by no means burried in sections and articles.

The only thing I can relate to a preamble in the PHB is the introduction that gives an overview of the book, talks briefly about the game and encourages fun. It is fluff.

But once that first page begins, you have stepped into the rules of the book, however you might interpret them. The chapters in the PHB are sections and articles. To use the quote you pulled as an example:

"Rogues share little in common with each other. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness."

This is not fluff. This is a clear definition on what rogues are and what they are not. We can not pick and choose what rules are important and what are not inside of the PHB.

 

[DonTadow]

wait until DMGII comes out. I believe there is a section in it on how to create your own PrC's.

The way I look at PrC's, if there happens to be one that is extremely close to what I see for my character, I'll work for it, otherwise I'll continue with the straight class. I have a Cleric of Strength who prefers to grapple. I looked at the Reaping Mauler and decided totally against it. I would need to throw 9 levels of skill points into cross class skills, or take 3 levels in a class I don't see the character going into just to become a grappler.

Talk to the DM. tell him what you see for your character and what you'd like to do with a PrC. See if you can come up with one.

C

There is a spreadsheet at www.rpgsheets.com that has a good point system for making prestige classes. I have made my own for my game. Most are tweaks of prestige classes I found online. I am abig fan of regulating prestige classes for a campaign so that it can fit with the setting.

 

[The_Universe]

Short answer, "Yes."

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

Obviously this is not actually the case - the worst design decision of 3rd edition was the inclusion of options that players and DM's alike will interpret as obligations - thereby creating an entire subculture of customers whose sole purchasing motivation is to find even more obligations about which they may complain. I'm with you, buddy - I hate choices and options. Anything that lets me build a character I actually want to play totally suxxors.