Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[billd91]

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.

All thieves are not rogues at all. Any character can steal things regardless of their core abilities and skills. They just may do their stealing using differnt skill sets than the rogue character class is gear for (like a fighter beating up or intimidating people on the street or a bard conman). Characters who want to specialize in certain skills and abilities are well advised to pick the character class that mechanically fits best. But there's a big difference between playing a rogue class and a rogue personality. The latter can be done by any character class (with the possible exception of the paladin, because they have certain RP requirements to uphold their powers.... but even then, he may have a roguish grin and wink and schmooze the ladies ).

Players should be encouraged to think about the mechanical characteristics they want their PCs to have and think of the character classes as simply collections of those mechanics. You want someone from a civilzed culture but who flies into a berserk frenzy while fighting? Take the barbarian class for the mechanics even if all of the flavor text does not apply. And if the DM is amenable, see if he'll let you take literacy for free.

 

[Ravellion]

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.

Good point. PrC might add options... but only at first level. Most characters that shoot for a PrC are pretty much written in stone from then on till they reach it, and PrC usually aren't very flexible either - the story, in my experience, does not affect the Class selection of characters with PrC on their mind. This isn't necessarily uncreative, but it certainly demands that all creativity is applied during initial character creation.

Rav

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Your scacasm-fu needs work, grasshopper. My whole argument is that PrC's reduce options. If I actually thought PrC's increased player choices and options, then I probably either wouldn't be opposed to them or at least wouldn't be as adamantly opposed to them. Your problem is that you see the removal of PrC's as something that limits options. If we were to elimenate PrC's and do nothing about replacing them, then indeed we would be reducing choices. But that's not at all what I've suggested.

What I suggested is PrC's should not have been included in the design of the game in the first place. The design of 3rd edition contains two primary mechanics for customizing a character. First, in the PH they introduced the concept of Feats. With a feat you could choose what things you wanted your character to excel at. For the most part, although some feats were more benificial to some classes than others, feats were fully applicable to any class. In theory, as I've already shown, you can make a character of any concept using just combinations of feats and basic mechanics like multiclassing. But in addition to this concept, the designers of 3rd edition came up with a completely different approach called 'Prestige Classes' which they introduced in the DMG. If the primary purpose of a prestige class is customizing your character, then as we've already shown its completely redundant with the concept of feats. But, compared to the concept of feats, the Prestige Class is alot less flexible mechanic that limits player options significantly. First, it sets rigid requirements for the entrance into the PrC. These requirements include not just skill and feat prerequisites that tend to be harsher than those for feats, but also include requirements in things like background and requirements for the role-playing experiences that your character must have before he can entire into the PrC. In short, they force conformity in characters - reducing player options. If that wasn't bad enough, the ability 'packages' offered by PrC's aren't nearly so mix and match as feats. You don't get to decide what order you want to take them in. You can't skip over class abilities that you don't want to take or that don't fit your character concept. You can't acquire these abilities as part of advancing yourself in another class. In short, PrC's don't really help a player build a character concept, they impose a character concept on the player.

Now suppose that the designers of 3rd edition had looked at the design of the game as a whole and had a conversation like this:

"You know John, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the concept of Feats and PrC's are redundant - I think we should clean up the design and get rid of one.
"Hmm...Yeah Monte, I can kind see that, but I can imagine both methods being popular with some people. Why don't we make one mechanic core and the other an option?"
"Well, I've thought about that, but I'm afraid that what will happen if we do that is that we'll end up spreading out our focus and not doing either mechanic as well or as fully as we should. Plus, if we offer a mechanic as an option that enhances PC's power in-game it will likely be adopted before people really have thought out the consequences. I think we can achieve the best balance and enjoyability by just offering one or the other."
"So which one do you want to elimenate?"
"I'm thinking we should elimenate PrC's and make feats more common. I've noticed that several classes go for long stretches without adding new class abilities. Players hate that. Plus, by making feats more common and numerous we give players more customization options - far more than we could give them by adding PrC's. They'll be able to take whatever skills that they feel fit thier character concept, instead of being stuck taking the same list of class abilities that everyone has. Rather than spend time making new PrC's, I think we should just add more feats to the core game. Adding more feats to the game will slightly bump up PC power, but no more than it would if we offered both feats and PrC's."
"While we are on the subject, I've been thinking of some ways to increase the flexibility of the base classes. I think that classes like Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, and Ranger have too much setting specific flavor. I think I've got some ways that we can make the class abilities of each flexible, and between your new more numerous feats and multiclassing the possibilities for characters are going to be almost endless."
"Rock on."

That's what should of happened. But instead, WotC tried to push both mechanics - though clearly they understood that the Feat was better for and more fundamental to the game than the PrC because they pushed the PrC into the DMG and made them explicitly optional. In doing so though, they divided thier time between a good flexible modern character creation mechanic (the feat), and an inflexible, rigid, old fashioned character creation mechanic (the PrC). The result is a game with alot of options, but not nearly as much options as it could have had.

Now, you might argue that they could have done the above and STILL added the PrC as an option, and that this would be by definition more options still. But I would argue that you're fooling yourself, because it should be clear that if the above reforms were made and then you decided to add a PrC to the game, one of the two situations would be true a) the PrC could be emulated using feats (either existing or created for that purpose) and/or multiclassing, or b) the PrC could not be emulated using feats and/or multiclassing which would only be true if the PrC added more abilities than any class would recieve as feats. In the former case, the PrC doesn't add to the possible options of the players. In the latter case, we could emulate the PrC simply by increasing again the available feats that players had access to at a given level. At that point, you could again add a more powerful PrC back into the game as an option, and if it still could not be emulated then we'd have to increase the number of available feats yet again ad infinitum. In that case, it becomes clear that the option that is really being desired by the PrC is not a character concept, but increased character power, and what PrC's really represent is not increased options but unbalancing power creep. What the PrC-phile who still demanded at PrC's were necessary to his 'character concept' would be saying is equivalent to a new player in GURPS saying that for a given number of character points the rules forbid him to buy as many skills as in his opinion his 'character concept' demanded, and so the rules are 'flexible' enough. At some point you have to stop and say, "This far we go, but no further" and balance the players desire to be broadly (or even deeply) heroic with what is good for the game.

 

[Celebrim]

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

Exactly. And once you take the class, the open vista of character advancement is still not open to you, because you pretty much no want you are going to get at each level. Compare this to a situation in which more bonus feats are available and you can mix and match those abilities you think fit the concept.

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.

Taking a PrC complete with a specific flavor, is like copying someone else's character concept rather than having your own.

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.

This is more or less exactly what I've done. Each of the base classes gets a tiny number more 'bonus feats' (14 instead of 11 in the case of the fighter, for example). The base classes with setting specific flavor have been rewritten to be more general (for example, you can be a 'barbarian' from a civilized area, or a 'paladin' of any alignment, or a 'druid' that specializes in death magic). Players can pick various starting advantages and disadvantages that are something like a cross between feats and 2nd edition kits to increase the flexibility of the classes further, and I've added alot of feats (especially for higher levels) including some inspired by PrC class abilities, and am perfectly willing to consider any balanced feat equivalent ability that you'd like to add to the list that you think is necessary for your character concept. I don't need PrCs. The kind of flexibility I have in character creation whether for PC's or NPC's at any level of play including first, is light years beyond what PrC's give you.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Taking a PrC complete with a specific flavor, is like copying someone else's character concept rather than having your own.

...Paladin, anyone? Or maybe Sorcerer would fit that, too. Even Druids! Bards, too!

How's my sarcasm-fu?

 

[Celebrim]

...Paladin, anyone? Or maybe Sorcerer would fit that, too. Even Druids! Bards, too!

How's my sarcasm-fu?

Still missing a certain bite.

I've replaced Paladins with a more general and flexible class called 'Champion'. Originally this used its own homebrew mechanics (which were pretty good themselves), but I've recently decided that I like the mechanics for Green Ronin's Holy/Unholy Warrior better.

I found Druids to be setting flavor specific as well. I'm using Green Ronin's Shaman class, and I'm trying to work up a feat tree that would allow you to Wildshape.

And my Sorcerer is far more flexible than the official version because its no longer tied specificly to being descended from a dragon (or whatever) and there are feat trees that not only bring out your specific powers, but let you morph into all sorts of semi-human things.

Bards I'm keeping until I come up with a better version, mainly because they fit certain aspects of my setting.

 

[DonTadow]

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.

THen what is a description? Why have it in the rule book. It is a recommendation that if you awish to play such a character then this class is what you would pick. I don't think that there should be a giant arrow with a bold "rule" formatted to label it a rule. What that paragraph tells me the reader is that this is a description of what a rogue is. And by description, I mean in this game this is what rogues are. Thus if i want to play a thief then i should pick rogue. Fluff is anything you can take out and the meaning still holds the same. This paragraph seems to be an important paragragh.

To the person whom says all thieves aren't rogues. I am talking again about strict interpretation of the book. If I pick this book up today and start reading this is how i interpret it.

I know there are a ton of rebel dms on the boards, but most of the changes I see suggested are changes that are not newbie friendly. The core books in particular should be kept as newbie friendly as possible and when you start suggesting that even the text in the book should not be followed, well you're starting to make your own system at that point. How confusing is it for a new player if he wants to play a thief and the book throws him into convulted suggestions such as, well you could play a monk and write in your background how you sneak around a lot, or you could play a wizard whom has a dark side or ect.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

If WotC were to make a class and name it 'adventurer' would that prevent a member of any of the classes from the PHB (or any other book) from being an adventurer.
No it would not.

 

[The_Universe]

Your scacasm-fu needs work, grasshopper. My whole argument is that PrC's reduce options. If I actually thought PrC's increased player choices and options, then I probably either wouldn't be opposed to them or at least wouldn't be as adamantly opposed to them. Your problem is that you see the removal of PrC's as something that limits options. If we were to elimenate PrC's and do nothing about replacing them, then indeed we would be reducing choices. But that's not at all what I've suggested.

What I suggested is PrC's should not have been included in the design of the game in the first place. The design of 3rd edition contains two primary mechanics for customizing a character. First, in the PH they introduced the concept of Feats. With a feat you could choose what things you wanted your character to excel at. For the most part, although some feats were more benificial to some classes than others, feats were fully applicable to any class. In theory, as I've already shown, you can make a character of any concept using just combinations of feats and basic mechanics like multiclassing. But in addition to this concept, the designers of 3rd edition came up with a completely different approach called 'Prestige Classes' which they introduced in the DMG. If the primary purpose of a prestige class is customizing your character, then as we've already shown its completely redundant with the concept of feats. But, compared to the concept of feats, the Prestige Class is alot less flexible mechanic that limits player options significantly. First, it sets rigid requirements for the entrance into the PrC. These requirements include not just skill and feat prerequisites that tend to be harsher than those for feats, but also include requirements in things like background and requirements for the role-playing experiences that your character must have before he can entire into the PrC. In short, they force conformity in characters - reducing player options. If that wasn't bad enough, the ability 'packages' offered by PrC's aren't nearly so mix and match as feats. You don't get to decide what order you want to take them in. You can't skip over class abilities that you don't want to take or that don't fit your character concept. You can't acquire these abilities as part of advancing yourself in another class. In short, PrC's don't really help a player build a character concept, they impose a character concept on the player.

Now suppose that the designers of 3rd edition had looked at the design of the game as a whole and had a conversation like this:

"You know John, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the concept of Feats and PrC's are redundant - I think we should clean up the design and get rid of one.
"Hmm...Yeah Monte, I can kind see that, but I can imagine both methods being popular with some people. Why don't we make one mechanic core and the other an option?"
"Well, I've thought about that, but I'm afraid that what will happen if we do that is that we'll end up spreading out our focus and not doing either mechanic as well or as fully as we should. Plus, if we offer a mechanic as an option that enhances PC's power in-game it will likely be adopted before people really have thought out the consequences. I think we can achieve the best balance and enjoyability by just offering one or the other."
"So which one do you want to elimenate?"
"I'm thinking we should elimenate PrC's and make feats more common. I've noticed that several classes go for long stretches without adding new class abilities. Players hate that. Plus, by making feats more common and numerous we give players more customization options - far more than we could give them by adding PrC's. They'll be able to take whatever skills that they feel fit thier character concept, instead of being stuck taking the same list of class abilities that everyone has. Rather than spend time making new PrC's, I think we should just add more feats to the core game. Adding more feats to the game will slightly bump up PC power, but no more than it would if we offered both feats and PrC's."
"While we are on the subject, I've been thinking of some ways to increase the flexibility of the base classes. I think that classes like Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, and Ranger have too much setting specific flavor. I think I've got some ways that we can make the class abilities of each flexible, and between your new more numerous feats and multiclassing the possibilities for characters are going to be almost endless."
"Rock on."

That's what should of happened. But instead, WotC tried to push both mechanics - though clearly they understood that the Feat was better for and more fundamental to the game than the PrC because they pushed the PrC into the DMG and made them explicitly optional. In doing so though, they divided thier time between a good flexible modern character creation mechanic (the feat), and an inflexible, rigid, old fashioned character creation mechanic (the PrC). The result is a game with alot of options, but not nearly as much options as it could have had.

Now, you might argue that they could have done the above and STILL added the PrC as an option, and that this would be by definition more options still. But I would argue that you're fooling yourself, because it should be clear that if the above reforms were made and then you decided to add a PrC to the game, one of the two situations would be true a) the PrC could be emulated using feats (either existing or created for that purpose) and/or multiclassing, or b) the PrC could not be emulated using feats and/or multiclassing which would only be true if the PrC added more abilities than any class would recieve as feats. In the former case, the PrC doesn't add to the possible options of the players. In the latter case, we could emulate the PrC simply by increasing again the available feats that players had access to at a given level. At that point, you could again add a more powerful PrC back into the game as an option, and if it still could not be emulated then we'd have to increase the number of available feats yet again ad infinitum. In that case, it becomes clear that the option that is really being desired by the PrC is not a character concept, but increased character power, and what PrC's really represent is not increased options but unbalancing power creep. What the PrC-phile who still demanded at PrC's were necessary to his 'character concept' would be saying is equivalent to a new player in GURPS saying that for a given number of character points the rules forbid him to buy as many skills as in his opinion his 'character concept' demanded, and so the rules are 'flexible' enough. At some point you have to stop and say, "This far we go, but no further" and balance the players desire to be broadly (or even deeply) heroic with what is good for the game.

The crux of your argument seems to apply equally to core classes and prestige classes, though. If class abilities for prestige classes should not be considered seperate in any meaningful way from feats, then I feel to see why class abilities in core classes should be treated any different.

But hey, I guess we'll just agree to disagree, because semantic arguments aside, removing a layer of player options just isn't going to make character customization any easier. You might like it better, but it's not objectively better (and certainly not so from this subjective perspective).

But hey - I just find 'net bitching annoying, so sarcasm is likely the only meaningful commentary you'll get from me.

 

[Henry]

...And by description, I mean in this game this is what rogues are. Thus if i want to play a thief then i should pick rogue. Fluff is anything you can take out and the meaning still holds the same. This paragraph seems to be an important paragragh.

To the person whom says all thieves aren't rogues. I am talking again about strict interpretation of the book. If I pick this book up today and start reading this is how i interpret it.

I know there are a ton of rebel dms on the boards, but most of the changes I see suggested are changes that are not newbie friendly. The core books in particular should be kept as newbie friendly as possible and when you start suggesting that even the text in the book should not be followed, well you're starting to make your own system at that point. How confusing is it for a new player if he wants to play a thief and the book throws him into convulted suggestions such as, well you could play a monk and write in your background how you sneak around a lot, or you could play a wizard whom has a dark side or ect.

I think I see where you're coming from, but then I have a looser definition of "D&D" than that. To me, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is D&D. Most of the d20 Supplemental material out there is D&D. And to me taking a descriptive paragraph and using it to enforce that all Rogues must be one certain way is not even taking the rules to heart, because the PHB has the suggestion to change your characters' abilities to fit a concept if your DM permits.

It's also an alarming trend to me that many new players are taking ALL of the rules as literally as possible without taking into account group preference, common sense, and alterations to taste. I, having grown up in a looser atmosphere of D&D play, find it a negative thing which detracts from the game instead of enhancing it. It's one thing to opt to play by the book; it's another to have the general mindset that the game MUST be played by-the-book to be effective or viable, not to mention fun.