How many PrC is okay?

[Mordane76]

I've been reading about PrC here and there on the boards, and I know that some people disavow them wholly, which is fine.

For those of us who don't disavow PrC, how many is too many for a PC? I can't think of an instance where a PC in one of my campaigns has had more than 2 -- we were playing in a homebrew with wizardly organizations, so the party wizard was a member of the Brotherhood (kinda like the Wizards of High Sorcery from Krynn) and then became a planeshifter. Is there a point where enough is enough? How does one adjudicate this cut-off point?


Personally -- I think that there shouldn't be a limit. Some aspects of character definition can be accomplished using PrC. It could also be accomplished using feats, but primarily it is accomplished via connections to organizations and the special abilities of the character. A character has a concept, and strives to meet it; if he can develop a balanced class that fits this concept, and I like it and have a place to fit it into my game (or allow him to found the organization at the appropriate level), then more power to a creative player!

 

[Crothian]

As long it it makes sense for the character and how it's being played, have as many as you want. I've yet to have players who choose a prestige class for power reasons, so min maxing is never a concern of mine. That seems to be the only reason people disallow them, they can't trust their players.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

I think according to "da r00lz" you can have as many PrCs as you want. In general I think this makes sense. If my wizard becomes a Mage of the Arcane Order, advances a bit in the heirarchy but decides to leave off the politics of the order to become an Elemental Savant ... I don't think there should be a problem with that.

But there are some cases where I think that membership in one PrC would preclude induction in another for role-play reasons.

 

[Mordane76]

I suppose I'm lucky -- my players only try to min-max at first level...

BiggusGeekus: I can see your point -- one can't be a member of two PrC that are at odds in-game, even as a double-agent; the obligations of both, IMO, would be too stressful to allow a player to attempt the feat. Now, if you disavow one (giving up the ability to advance in it further) to join the other, I think that would be kosher.

 

[incognito]

OK, I started a small hullabaloo on P-Cats thread, which was somewhat rude (I did apologize), but here is the forum for me to go to work.

Please reference the there here for some of my other thoughts on PrCs, if you get a chance:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34515


But basically P-Cat, and Blackjack summed it up pretty perfectly, if unwittingly.

"And to be blunt, taking a few more levels in the paladin class just doesn't do this. Can't you see Mara now? "Back, foul demons! I have an extra remove disease"

This is essentially the heart of my argument. Some classes are front loaded (ranger, paladin, some might argue that fighter after you have X number of feats is not as usefull). Casting classes, becasue you gain access to more and more powerfull spells sa you level gets higher tend to suffer less from this.

So Players, in an effort to "get more" out of leveling, want a PrC class that gives them something to look forward to.

Total Powergaming IMO.

If Mara does not like a level of Paladin, how about a level or 4 of fighter? No "standard" class is good enough, right? That type of sentiment raises my eyebrows.

Mara could be working toward an extra L4 Paladin spell, curing more HP per day, and getting another BAB, etc. But let's face it - her mount is already as pwoered up as it is going to get, she already has access to L4 Paladin spells, and there are plenty or PrC with fighter BAB (and better saves!) so why not go looking for other special abilities...

Blackjack says:

Actually, speaking as Malachite's player, I never wanted to be a "Paladin". I wanted to be a Knight of the Chapel of the Emerald. "Paladin" is an out-of-game character class that happened to go a ways towards representing that in-game persona.

So, did Blackjack ask to have some of the powers removed from paladin, and instead take one's more suited to KotCoE? I dunno, maybe he did. P-Cat may have an exceptional group.

but again, here we have a player posting to the same message board as the DM, trolling for PrC which fit his feats, skills and (hopefully) Character background. And I am told this is not Meta-Gamey.

Hey, you know what? I have heard people argue that Harm isn't over powered, or that Shout is a balanced L4 spell. that does not make it true.

We all love the DoDs, and P-Cat's story hour, but I needed a forum to stress that player crafted PrCs or even DM crafted PrCs created to help out a player frustrated with his PC advancement is kinda munchy.

This is a pretty strong statement to make, given the thread going on in house rules right now, and yes, sometimes I come off sounding a little heavy handed. Please note that I do not mean to denigrate anyone, or say "this or that is wrong" per se - heck if you want to give everyone death ray guns that do 8d8 as a ranged touch attacks and ialso gnore displacement effects, fine if everyone is keen on it, then be my guest - I just am looking for a nod toward balance.

And when I see players seeking mutiple PrCs I get veeeery eyebrow twitchy.

Agree? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Mordane76]

Okay, incognito, I'm not here to pick apart your argument -- munchy classes can and do occur. Munchy spells can and do occur.

Are you saying you think that all PrC are bad?

In the example I gave of one of my PCs, the setting almost required him to become a member of the Brotherhood if he wanted access to more powerful magicks and to keep the "in" mages from hunting him down and killing him. The Planeshifter came about as our campaign moved from Prime to Planes, and the player focused his learning on planar travel.

Is your beef with PrC a power issue or a flavor issue?
Or is your beef not with the PrC themselves, but with the player usage of these classes?

 

[the Jester]

Personally, I think it's all about the trade-off- do you want another low-level ability in a different area, or do you want to work towards that awesome 10th-level prc ability? I try to build the prcs I build with an eye towards there still being a reason to take a base class. I try to make it so that it's sometimes painful to gain the really good abilities, with a few levels thrown in where you don't get much.

I guess what I'm getting at is that is, everything should be a choice. There should always be something to get from another level of a class you already have, so taking more prcs means you lose out on other abilities.

 

[Piratecat]

Why do you think it's bad to allow balanced prestige classes?

Incognito, I think your argument is badly flawed. You seem to think that the core classes are ideal as written, but that other rules - rules that allow you to multiclass, rules that allow you to take prestige classes - are broken. I'm at a loss as to why you feel that way, but there it is.

Ready for a news flash? High levels of paladin and barbarian and ranger are boring to many people. I think they aren't much fun, because they don't especially provide you with *new* toys. Such toys don't necessarily have to be powerful (contrary to your power-gaming assertion), but they should be fun, and its always nice to have additional capabilities even if they don't pack much power. Rogue "special abilities" like slippery mind are a good example.

Heck, by happy coincidence I was actually sitting in on the WotC discussion when Monte and several other designers were arguing about how to make high level barbarians interesting (they settled later on DR.) It's certainly a recognized problem.

And thus your comment on power-gaming doesn't resonate for me. To me, wanting to make a character mechanically more interesting is just common sense, as well as being fun. Seeking massive power doesn't enter into it. So how did the designers fix the "boring" problem? By allowing more options through prestige classes. By making sure that players had massive customization, and thus providing them with something to look forward to. The Jester is right; at every level you have choices. Why are choices suddenly bad because the PCs are high level?

[cue personal frothing]

Anyways, how in God's name do you claim to know what's balanced in my game? Claiming that I'm doing something "munchy" when by definition a balanced prestige class is both within the rules and a benefit to game and player is extremely insulting. If you don't like how I run my game, then don't read related threads, and feel free to say how you'd differ; but don't insult my players and tell me I'm doing it wrong. That's in extremely bad taste. Maybe my game is far from perfect. But I'd have to shed a lot of manners before I accused someone of bad DMing compared to me.

You don't want to allow prestige classes or flexibility in your own campaign? Feel free, and I'd decide whether to play in your game or not accordingly. But I'd certainly appreciate it if you stopped using me as an example for this discussion.

 

[seasong]

Personally, I think it's more "meta gamey" to worry about whether or not something is munchy, than it is to try to get a "just right" character concept.

On the one hand, I could allow that military scout idea to take 1 level of Ranger for the Tracking + wilderness skills, follow through with a dozen levels or so of Rogue, and then make up a PrC that meets the desired abilities of the military scout when Rogue starts to falter at the higher levels.

OR, I could take the suggested path here, and deny the munchy Ranger front-loading abuse, have the player take the Tracking feat as a Rogue, penalize the player for taking wilderness skills with a character not suited for it, and have them take a Fighter or Ranger when Rogue stops suiting... even though they don't really suit the specifics either, and he's already got Tracking.

As a side note: modifying a core class to get the abilities you want is functionally identical to building a PrC, for those who missed that.

Which approach better suits the character? For myself, I'd go with the first solution. Yeah, it's a little munchy, but it puts together the right package of abilities right off the bat, and lets the player get down and play.

 

[Mordane76]

Playing Devil's Advocate here --

In some core classes, there isn't much new that comes about by taking "that next level." Paladin is front loaded, and you get little out of it at the higher levels, as is Ranger. One could argue that Druid and Monk are front loaded as well. In Druid and Monk, however, there is a reason to take that next level -- I'm gonna get something cool at the next level, more than likely.

I agree, this may sound power-munchy-bad, but what is D&D if not a game in which you go from not-so-salty-goodness at first level to the pinnacle of salty-goodness at 20th level? Third Edition especially promote multiclassing, and the PrC came out in the DMG, so they must be good things, right? And WotC keeps churning out new PrC, as do so many other d20 companies... so they must be good things, right? (end Devil's Advocate)


I think the major point of argument is the potential loss of connection of the PrC to some viable, stable organization in the campaign world. Some of the PrC don't allow this, but they have requirements that are occasionally difficult to reach, and their focus is very narrow. This is the core of the trade-off issue Jester talks about -- you trade off the abilities of core classes for the power the PrC offers. A lot of PrC are front-loaded, even more so than the core classes, but there are also a LOT more PrC than core classes.

I can't say I'm not guilty of this, either -- I know that when I make PrC, it's so tempting to front-load them, because you want this organization to be cool in this area, or that organization to rock the party with this awesome ability. It's so tempting...

But it is a temptation we must resist.