How many PrC is okay?

[officeronin]

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!

I had a wizard who became a loremaster. After 10 levels of Loremaster, I had to either go back to wizard or find something else. I asked the DM if he'd extend loremaster out a few more levels, and he said no. So, I took another PrC that was closest.

I think PrCs are a little more potent than "regular" classes. This is balanced because of the goofy entrance requirements. If you went after more than one, you hurt yourself because you had to satisfy so many requirements.

The only thing that bothers me about PrCs is when people take the PrC for the groovy powers, but do not play it. We had a PC in our group who took the "madness" domain upon entering the ranks of the "contemplative" PrC. The Tazmanian Devil was more contemplative than this PC...

OfficeRonin

 

[Mordane76]

Actually, I play because I have learned a way to siphon life energy from players involved in RP games; it's all part of my mad scheme to achieve immortality!!

And I would agree with you about the XP penalties; I haven't made the change yet in my campaigns, but that because I've still been getting over the shock that they didn't incur the penalty in the first place (been getting over this shock for a few months now)...

 

[incognito]

Eh, I'm saying that the event was special, it was DM-instigated, and I think you know it

Almost everything high-level characters do can (should?) be considered **special** as they are some of the most powerful non-divinities walking around. Yes, event based sessions are a determinant in attaning a PrC. IMO it takes more than a session. IMO, it should take more than a level.

The players are requesting a PrC, maybe even submitting some ideas for how they would like it to look, but they aren't designing it.

Ahh but there's the rub! Where to draw the line? Now you are in an area where you and the PC are discussing, possibly debating what abilites will eb granter for his or her next level (or even several levels later. You have great players, as you've mentioned, yet you still ripped great cleave from Athan's Bosom before it settled in too snugly. And that's jsut a feat. The potenetial for abuse is there, and if I can shut down an avenue for abuse I'm going to - there are avenue's enough out there already

Conflict of interest requires actual power to do so.

I'm not sure I could disgree with this more. The perception of conflict is as disruptive as the abuse itself. Every group is differnt, but I am talking about a general rule. A possible exception is a player submitting ideas (and Ideas only, no mechanics) for a PrC for a different player becasue at least the interest is indirect.

A PrC, in my humble opinion, needs at least a thousand words of flavor text.

OTOH, I agree with this 100% Few of the current PrCs do. Most of them have a paragraph or two.

If anyone is curious, I have one, out of 4 players currently contending for a PrC. And it is a munchy one (holy liberator), but this PC has purchased cross class ranks in Know (religion), and roleplayed it through (so far) 2 levels. When I feel he has got the spirit of the PrC down, he will be granted it. Not before.

PS: I'm a big theory discussor. I'm also periodically wrong. Talking things out often helps me see this. Sometimes talking things out makes me feel I am more correct. In the specific case of a generic player, designing or trolling for ideas for a custom prestige class, to be gained for his next level of advancement, with the help of his DM, I am FIRMLY against. Double do if the character in question already has a single prestige class.

 

[Capellan]

In the specific case of a generic player, designing or trolling for ideas for a custom prestige class, to be gained for his next level of advancement, with the help of his DM, I am FIRMLY against.

And I am firmly for.

If a PC has a character concept in mind, even if it is somewhat nebulous at the beginning, then as a DM I am all in favour of them pursuing that idea. I see nothing wrong with creating a new PrC to do it, or with asking for feedback and ideas from the boards. In fact, I think the latter is a very good idea, since it means more thoughts and ideas being fed into the mix, and more eyes to see potential balance problems.

PrCs are an excellent tool for making characters distinctive and unique, not just in terms of RP-flavour, but also in terms of the way the game works when they are around.

I could play Robin Hood, Fighter / Ranger. Or I could play Robin Hood, Ranger / Deepwood Sniper. Which gives a better 'feel' for the underlying character concept? (assuming, of course, that you change that ranger two weapon thing to only work with double weapons, like the quarterstaff)

Are PrCs open to abuse? Sure. So are most aspects of the game. But that's the individual DM's call. They know what works for their game.

But to argue that an individual player has no right to design, propose or ask for feedback on a PrC idea is, IMVRHO, absolutely ludicrous, not to mention counter-productive. I want to encourage my players to take an active role in defining their character concept and in developing an understanding of the way the D&D system works. Obviously they can't have carte blanche - and no-one is suggesting they should - but they should certainly be able to make suggestions. It is after all, their character, and their vision of what/who that character is.

Double do if the character in question already has a single prestige class. [/B]

I would look askance at any player who took levels in a second PrC without finishing the first, unless there were major RPing reasons (such as if they died, were raised, and wanted to try out the Blood Magus PrC because of it). If they have finished the full progression of the first PrC, however, then I see no issue: provided the new PrC develops the character concept that has already been established.

One of the core aspects of incognito's argument is, I think, that "PrCs should not be taken simply because they are better than core classes". That's true. But if they are a better fit for the character concept, then I say go for it.

 

[seasong]

Almost everything high-level characters do can (should?) be considered **special** as they are some of the most powerful non-divinities walking around. Yes, event based sessions are a determinant in attaning a PrC. IMO it takes more than a session. IMO, it should take more than a level.

Point. You're right.

I still think an event can justify the PrC (given the nature of the characters and the event), but I can more easily see your desire to make them work for a level before gaining it.

Ahh but there's the rub! Where to draw the line? Now you are in an area where you and the PC are discussing, possibly debating what abilites will eb granter for his or her next level (or even several levels later. You have great players, as you've mentioned, yet you still ripped great cleave from Athan's Bosom before it settled in too snugly. And that's jsut a feat.

Yes, I did. I also did not tell him he couldn't have feats in the future, or tell him that he couldn't create a feat and ask me for it, or otherwise try to do a "blanket denial". I just decided that, in this one case (decided case by case), that great cleave simply did not fit the power level I wanted the campaign to operate at yet, and definitely didn't fit the '1 point' rule. He'll still be getting great cleave tightly to his bosom, just later on, at a more appropriate cost.

The important thing is this: I decided it. The player had no conflict of interest in taking it, because keeping it wasn't his decision.

I'm not sure I could disgree with this more. The perception of conflict is as disruptive as the abuse itself.

To use your example, if the doctor doesn't have the private information to give, it doesn't matter who he talks to. Yes, some people may carry the perception that he shouldn't be talking to this or that person, but personally, I'm more inclined to view those people as disruptive than the doctor.

Similarly, if the player can not make the decision about the PrC's inclusion or denial, the person who cries foul about the player suggesting the PrC is the disruptive one.

One the other hand, the one who says, "Hey, isn't a 3d10 hit die just a leetle over the top?" is doing the DM a valuable service. But that's a very different thing from saying the player shouldn't be able to influence or suggest a PrC in the first place.[/QUOTE]Every group is differnt, but I am talking about a general rule. A possible exception is a player submitting ideas (and Ideas only, no mechanics) for a PrC for a different player becasue at least the interest is indirect.[/QUOTE]Again, I don't see the conflict of interest.

Regarding a thousand words of flavor text:

OTOH, I agree with this 100% Few of the current PrCs do. Most of them have a paragraph or two.

Yes, and I don't like those PrCs. They usually singularly fail to capture my interest... which translates rather directly into them not being accepted in my campaigns.

PS: I'm a big theory discussor. I'm also periodically wrong.

Oh, yeah, me too! Periodically, I mean. Say, with the phase of the moon .

Talking things out often helps me see this. Sometimes talking things out makes me feel I am more correct. In the specific case of a generic player, designing or trolling for ideas for a custom prestige class, to be gained for his next level of advancement, with the help of his DM, I am FIRMLY against. Double do if the character in question already has a single prestige class.

And yet I have to ask, why? Do you fear that the DM is unable to judge whether or not the resulting PrC is overpowered or too front-loaded? If so, comment on the suggestions made on these boards! If you see something front-loaded, make sure the DM hears from you about it!

But, as mentioned above, that's a very different thing from blanket denial of the process of the suggestion.

 

[Mordane76]

** starts wearing an "I agree with Seasong" T-shirt **

I know that some of the PrC that hit the boards make me think of "Clash of the Titans" meets "Mighty Morphing Power Rangers," but those are the ones that get shot down hard, and usually re-emerge with a better sense of balance in their rewrites.


But who are we to dictate what is fun for our players? I know we're there to guide the fun, but we can't force-feed them what we think is fun and/or appealing. There are balance issues ---> we revoke feat choices, we approve character directions within the jurisdiction of the game's past and future directions, and we create the challenges. But to deny the players an OOC opinion and voice in the development of the setting that they are equally involved in is harsh, and IMO ludicrous.

 

[incognito]

Capellan and seasong: One root question you both pose to me is "Why a character taking a second PrC or designing a PrC is wrong?"

To this I answer

Why are players rewarded with prestige classes as a way to define thier charactrer concept? Are the standard advancement awards not enough? Feats, ability score increases, hit dice, etc. how about a little extra XP?

And why do they need to be involved with the design process? Did they help you design the world (seaong)? Why not get thier input when creating non-standard creatures? Or "dungeons?" Or "custom" deities (one's with domains that better suit thier needs)?

Player's have plenty of options wihout adding new ones. Skills feats, choices of standard classes. Defining a new PrC is simply not needed, and can create the perception (in other players or the DM/player relation) of impropriety.

not needed IMO, and causes (far) more problems than it solves.

 

[Mordane76]

So, what about my case? The players are helping me design the world, they are helping with the monsters, the items, and all that jazz. Is it wrong of me to include them in all of this, incognito?

 

[seasong]

Why are players rewarded with prestige classes as a way to define thier charactrer concept? Are the standard advancement awards not enough? Feats, ability score increases, hit dice, etc. how about a little extra XP?

Yes, these are good, too .

And why do they need to be involved with the design process? Did they help you design the world (seaong)? Why not get thier input when creating non-standard creatures? Or "dungeons?" Or "custom" magic items?

1) Every time they ask me a question, or suggest an answer when I'm not sure, they help me. And some settings are more player-driven/built than others. My ell'jaret setting is all about the "you make it up, and I'll incorporate it". Theralis is a bit more high concept, so they don't put in as much, but I'm not going to automatically reject something just because a player suggested it. That's madness .

2) Creatures: Well, why not? It's not like they can't look up the standard creatures already. I either trust them to firewall or I don't. If I didn't, then that's different - but creatures are not a PC option.

3) Dungeons: see (2). That's not something the character could know about. And even then... Greppa's player helped me conceptualize Hurath's Tower (something the character knew about).

4) Custom magic items: Heck yes! I tend to pour a lot of words into just one item, and I need all the help I can get. I retain final say on any such thing, of course, and I've nerfed plenty of item concepts, but I'm more than happy to accept player input and suggestions.

As for the 'need' to help define the world... whooboy, but that's a can of worms. Personally, I like to make the players (the players, mind you, not just the characters) an indelible part of a world's personality.

Player's have plenty of options wihout adding new ones. Skills feats, choices of standard classes. Defining a new PrC is simply not needed, and can create the perception (in other players or the DM/player relation) of impropriety.

Quite frankly, no they don't. D&D can't cover all of the options I want for my setting with the listed skills, feats and standard classes. If it can't even cover the basics of the setting (I needed generic spellcasters who were no good whatsoever in combat, for example), how can it begin to cover all of the cool and occasionally cinematic things a player might want to do?

I think I may not be confronting what you meant, however - your paragraph above seems unrelated to your other points?

 

[incognito]

more tomorrow...