Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[Hand of Evil]

getting on this thread late and have not read all replies, so...

I view PrC as a DM's option, and the DM should look at them very carefully before allowing them into their game. They are an element for the campaign and what the DM is trying to develop with plots and campiagn, PrCs become pathway careers for the players. Does this curb creativity? Yes, for the players but no, for the DM, players take the roles the DM presents to them, on the other hand the DM is the director with a mission statement and scope.

I guess the debate comes down to who has the right of ownership of the character (DM or Player), the type of game and the type of players. Do players play the game and the DM run it, or Does the DM run the game and the players play in it?

 

[ForceUser]

I'm making up a new character after my dwarf fighter died. I'm looking into an elf Wizard and I've noticed that I either go for a prestige class and spend resources on stupid things that don't fit the character to gain something that does (the prestige class), or I go straight wizard and actually be able to build the character I envision.

So, do other people see prestige classes as making too many player choices for you?

No. A prestige class is either a resource for further defining one's character, or simply unnecessary for the concept. A good prestige class is neither better nor worse than the base classes; it is more specialized. A well-crafted prestige class has entry requirements and class features germane to the concept. Furthermore, a well-implemented prestige class is not simply another generic fighter or wizard, but a living, breathing specific and integrated part of the DM's campaign world. The generic prestige classes found in published works are meaningless until the DM contextualizes them for his story.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But all thieves are rogues.

Extremely not true.

 

[Felon]

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.

You haven't got a leg to stand on here. A description does not amount to a rule, and there is no imperative contained in that description to make it one. Of course it's fluff.

 

[orangefruitbat]

No longer a fan

Here's why. To me, classes are what your character is, while feats and class abilities are what your character can do. Now, not everyone agrees with this, but personally, I like the strong archetypal nature of DnD classes (along with flexible multiclassing rules).

Now in my experience, players are drawn to prestige classes for the funky powers (or to make a viable multi-clased spellcaster). It's not necessarily power-gaming (though it often is), but players like characters who can do cool stuff. You can gain nifty abilities by taking feats, but most characters will only recieve 7 or 8 of these over their entire lifespan. Plus, many of the feats are useful, but not really exciting. (I gain another +1 to my spellcasting DC). OTH, characters gain 20 class choices over their lifespan, and most prestige classes ofter something funky for each of their levels.

So, now players are willing to deform their character concept by trying to meet the prereqs of a new prestige class (guess I'll take Toughness for my decrepid wizard...) Furthermore, they have to plan ahead several levels to meat the requirements for the class since skill and feat gains can be very slow. And making new characters from scratch is a pain.

Personally, I would eliminate prestige classes and keep the number of base classes down (though I like the swashbucker and a couple of others). I would increase the number of feats PCs get (to possibly 1/level, though maybe 1/2 levels is enough), and offer some of the cooler Prestigue class abilities as feats. This would mean that feats would probably get a bit of a boost. And with the practicised spellcaster feats (or some varient thereof), you could even make vialble multi-classed spellcasters - though maybe some more rules tweaking is in order.

You could even make some of the class abilities special feats that are only taught by specific organizations. So, hide in plain sight is taught by the shadow theives, etc.

 

[kirinke]

I find prestige classes to be annoying. For one, alot of the cleric-based prestige classes are charisma based instead of wisdom based which I don't understand at all. I've looked in some of the other base classes and find the same thing repeated!

When the base class has one stat focus, the prestige class that is based on the base class has another. Frustrating isn't it? Or am I missing something here? Are the so called cleric-prestige classes really for paladins? If so get me some good prestige classes that at least fit the base class! Bah...

ooo... Am I frothing at the mouth? I think so....
End rant. Goes to take meds....

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I don't care for them too much. Many of them have pretty ridiculous requirements that you have to plan for from level 1, which takes away so much of the open vista/ tabula rasa that is normally associated with beginning adventurers. My gaming group hasn't used them very much, and once we switch entirely to C&C, will not use them at all.

I'll go out on a limb, and say that I liked 2e's kits more.

 

[kirinke]

To me, it seems like the prestige classes are a great idea in theory, but in practice are poorly concieved. I mean, I actually like the concept of alot of the classes in general. But the mechanics of them are a nightmare. I think that the designers never actually playtested these critters to see if they were actually feasible. They just seemed to say wow, I like this concept, let's throw some rules together and put it out and see if people will bite.

I have plenty to do with the core classes. Your character is only as unique as you roleplay her.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But all thieves are rogues.

If a DM were to tell me my wizard wasn't able to steal something because he didn't have any rogue levels, I would walk out the door right then and there. I suggest you rethink your oppinion on this matter.

EDIT: Wizards make great thieves. They have invisibility, scry, teleport, and all sorts of other spells that can help them steal things. Bards make excelent face men, as well as have skills and spells that can aid in the stealing of stuff. Rangers, barbarians, and druids make great bandits with their ability to live off the land. Fighers excell in extortion with their physcial prowess and ranks in intimidate. And everyone can cross class to be good at something they are not usually good at.

 

[billd91]

I don't care for them too much. Many of them have pretty ridiculous requirements that you have to plan for from level 1, which takes away so much of the open vista/ tabula rasa that is normally associated with beginning adventurers. My gaming group hasn't used them very much, and once we switch entirely to C&C, will not use them at all.

I'll go out on a limb, and say that I liked 2e's kits more.

I disagree. The only reason a player may "have" to plan their advancement out from level 1 is if they really want to squeeze every last bit out of the prestige class. There's no requirement that they have to achieve all 10 (or 5 or 3) levels out of a prestige class, nor that they have to take the prestige class at the first opportunity. That's what's nice about them. PCs can adjust their goals as they play to qualify for a prestige class later on in life. In this aspect, they feel like they can be more role-playing oriented than kits since a character's role may change over time as they develop experiences.
By contrast, you pretty much do have to take a kit right away and mid-life changes are harder to implement. That said, I still think there are places for kits too that might adjust the class skills available to a particular PC class based on the background required of any character taking that kit.