How many PrC is okay?

[Capellan]

Will all due respect Capellan, this is simply not true, if all the PCs end up taking a PrC, or multiple PrC, then they cease to be special. Also, it can have the side effect of making characters who don't qualify for a PrC feel left out, or less than special.

With an equal amount of respect, it is true . Any D&D game world is full of fighters, wizards and rogues. They are generally not full of members of any one PrC (though a setting where one particular PrC was rampant might be an interesting mini-campaign).

OK, the player who developed the PrC suddenly has access to a "class" that did not exist before. Not only that, accoring to some poeples opinions, he should be able to qualify for it right away - so suddenly he HAS some of those new abilities. The other player chose a different set of feats, skills, based on a knowledge of existing classes, and role-playing considerations (hopefully). Now he sees options availble to another player that are not availble to him. He A) might now want to design his own PrC, but does not ahve the time, imagination, or ability B) might be irritated with a set of feats, or skills he picked and desire the other PrC, or C) might no longer see his own class or classes as desireable as compared with the PrC

It seems your hypothetical players design their characters in a vacuum, without any sense of theme or intent. I guess there are players out there like that, but I generally find that my players come to me on day 1 of the campaign and say "I want to play a Legolas-type" or "I have this idea for a holy warrior of St Cuthbert" or some other, capsule concept.

Also, I note that you continue to talk as if the player making the PrC has carte blanche to give it whatever abilities and pre-reqs they like. No-one is suggesting this. As I and seasong have said - several times now - the DM has the ultimate right of refusal. Players can propose things, but the DM doesn't have to accept them.

Yes, he would be as distintive. It is only the perception of the player/DM that causes him to be any less distinctinve. Robin Hood was famous for his actions, just as much as he was famous for his abilities. Don't tell me you need a prestige class to give a character distinction, do you?

From a mechanical perspective, of course you do. If you make your Robin Hood solely with core classes, you'll have to 'blur' some of the character concept to fit into the rules. Obviously his first Favoured Enemy is "Normans". What's his second? Why the hell does he have spells? It seems I can't be a nature warrior unless I get magic, but that doesn't fit my character concept. I better get some levels of Rogue. But he needs to be tougher, so I'd best get some Fighter, too ... or maybe Barbarian, even though the Rage ability makes no sense for the concept. At least Barbarians don't wear platemail, which also makes no sense for the concept.

PrCs should not be about being 'better' than the core classes - and they certainly shouldn't be about being better than the other players. They should be about nailing your character concept from a game mechanics perspective. You can RP your character's personality to the Nth degree, but if the abilities don't match the concept, he will still feel a little 'off'.

Note that my issues above are just as much about denying certain abilities to my character as they are about giving him them. Plate armour, spells and barbarian rages don't match my character concept. I don't want them. But if I am stuck using the core classes, it's likely that they will have to get included.

I don't have all the time in the world. becasue one player wants to create a custom prestige class for his character, does not mean I have time to work on it with him, play test it, make sure there is not some loophole that I missed AND at the same time make sure the other players don't feel left out of the spotlight -
PrCs are (and should be) SPECIAL.

If you don't have time to adequately vet a PrC, that's fine. You simply say that to the player, and explain that because of that, you can't allow it. Campaign balance - as I have said half a dozen times already - must come first.

And Capellan. I don't give two figs if it IS thier character. I am the DM, it's my world!

I sincerely hope that you do give two figs that it is their character. Because that statement, taken to it's logical extreme, is: "It's my game. You're just spectators." But I assume you are just exaggerating for emphasis.

The thing is, while you are making a lot of good points about the need for game balance, you are continually tilting at straw men. You keep telling us that players shouldn't be allowed to just introduce any old thing they like into the game. But no-one is arguing with you about that! What we're arguing about is your apparent position that the PCs have no right to suggest things to the DM.

D) Players who actively seek PrCs and or custom PrC generally DON'T have the best intentions in mind. They want new toys.

I disagree with this statement. In my experience, a minority of players who seek PrCs (custom or otherwise) are doing so with "improper intentions". Sure, it happens, but - at least in my experience - most people simply want to portray their character concept as accurately as they can, both from a roleplaying and a game mechanics point of view.

You seem to have a very negative opinion of players in general, from your posts in this thread: you seem suspicious of their motives in making suggestions or pursuing a PrC. Maybe I've been uncommonly blessed, but my players aren't like that (nor would I play with them, if they were).

That being said, I suppose you could make other changes to the world: roll d6's for everything (saving throws, to hit, spell resistance, initiative), and instead of having HP, have wounded conditions (light, moderate, severe). Ooopps - they have that game already, it's called SHADOWRUN. A fine game, but it's not DnD.

Sorry, but this is a completely spurious argument. PrCs are a part of the D&D game mechanics. You might as well say that allowing a PC to research a new spell or create a new magical item is "not D&D".

 

[Capellan]

I'm not going to disagree that Magic/high level spells are strong. but even Wizards and Clerics (the Uber class) persue PrCs they are always the ones with +1 caster level. Why? becasue they don't want to give up what's really good.

First, let me say that I agree that most PrCs that give +1 caster level per level of the PrC are suspect, in terms of game balance. Especially classes that arcance casters can get into.

I assume that it's those "+1 caster level per level of the PrC" classes that you are saying Wizards and Clerics "always" pursue (the alternative interpretation - that you mean a PrC that gives any spell advancement at all - seems unlikely to me).

With that said, the use of the word "always" is a bad idea. All I have to do is find one example of someone who hasn't done that, and your statement is incorrect: and I can think of 3 people in my gaming group alone who have chosen to do something else with their Wizard or Cleric's PrC choices.

 

[Skade]

caster levels

I for one have created a few spell caster prestige classes that did NOT give a caster level at each class level. I have made new spell progressions, and occasionally had levels with no spells. It just depends on the power level that class was meant to give.

I guess my question, for either side of this debate is whether a powerful prestige class is inherently broken. I have made a small number of PrC's primarilly for my own use. Several of them are more powerful than a normal class. This is balanced, in my mind at least, by strict requirements of the characters actions and roleplay, very difficult to attain prerequisites and devotion to the class. The more powerful ones I have designed do not allow you to muticlass, much like a monk.

 

[barsoomcore]

incognito:

What strikes me most about your comments is how you try and describe your experiences in broad generalizations. I think you'd find with much more sympathy if you simply explained your experiences. It sounds like you've gotten a pretty hard time from your players. That's unfortunate. But to make sweeping statements about all players or all prestige classes (or even most) only makes you look foolish, since we all know you haven't conducted any surveys or posted any sources for your information.

And more importantly, it doesn't matter. Your experiences are perfectly valid. As are your DM rulings on your campaign. If you don't want prestige classes in your campaign, fine. You should ban them.

But I should not ban them in MY campaign because of YOUR experiences, should I?

D) Players who actively seek PrCs and or custom PrC generally DON'T have the best intentions in mind. They want new toys.

See? This is what I'm talking about. What you really mean is, "My players don't have the best intentions in mind. My players just want new toys." Because MY players, for example, emphatically do NOT. Which throws your whole argument out the window.

I won't tell anyone how to run thier game. I think most of us stick to "DM makes world."

Why introduce this? Who cares what 'most of us' do? Tell us what YOU do. I'm interested.

Players do not NEED to be involved in every aspect of the game, in fact. It is likely to be more detrimetal, than less.

Again, here you are making blanket statements about players that are patently untrue. What I understand you to be saying is that your players do not need to be involved. That if your players were to be involved in every aspect of the game, that your game would suffer.

I'm sure that's true. I'm just as sure that in my campaign the facts are different. My players are love to involve themselves in many aspects of the game. They come up with NPCs, plots, and yes, prestige classes. They enjoy it, and I enjoy it, and that's all the justification anyone needs in this game.

If your experiences have been negative, I'm sorry for you.

Allowing players too much say in a game tends to turn into to rules arguing, which is not my cup of tea while playing, athough fine when seeking input on the message boards here.

Again, what I hear you saying is how your campaigns have turned into rules arguments. That's unfortunate. It's apparent, however, from the other posts in this thread, that such a fate is not by any means inevitable. It is clearly possible for campaigns to involve players on many levels and still succeed.

Please understand I am not asking you defend your stance against prestige classes in your campaign. If they're not right for your group, then you are right to ban them. Just like I'm right to ban elves, dwarves, halflings, half-orcs and gnomes. You don't need any reason beyond "I'm the DM."

Who cares? It's your game. You don't need justifications and you can't build them out of flimsy generalizations. Talk about your experiences, your friends, your players and your campaign. We all want to hear that.

 

[tburdett]

From a mechanical perspective, of course you do. If you make your Robin Hood solely with core classes, you'll have to 'blur' some of the character concept to fit into the rules. Obviously his first Favoured Enemy is "Normans". What's his second? Why the hell does he have spells? It seems I can't be a nature warrior unless I get magic, but that doesn't fit my character concept. I better get some levels of Rogue. But he needs to be tougher, so I'd best get some Fighter, too ... or maybe Barbarian, even though the Rage ability makes no sense for the concept. At least Barbarians don't wear platemail, which also makes no sense for the concept.

Capellan, just because a class allows you to do something, it does not mean that you are forced to do it.

As an example, take the level of Ranger, but, never cast spells and do not select more than one favored enemy. If you're doing it for RP purposes, as you claim, the loss of a few abilities is no big deal because it helps to define your character, right?

 

[Xeoble]

On a completely different note...Mordane, nice work on starting such a long post string

YAY for my martial arts styles!

TeeHee!! I MIN-MAX FOR ALL LEVELS MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This message has been brought to you by the Ophids

 

[Capellan]

Capellan, just because a class allows you to do something, it does not mean that you are forced to do it.

As an example, take the level of Ranger, but, never cast spells and do not select more than one favored enemy. If you're doing it for RP purposes, as you claim, the loss of a few abilities is no big deal because it helps to define your character, right?

There's a little thing called game balance - whether or not the core classes achieve it is a matter of opinion, but they aim to do so - if you deliberately nerf a core part of your class's abilities without a corresponding gain, you're breaking game balance just as much as if you tried to get additional abilities with no drawbacks.

My point is - and remains - that well-designed PrCs are not about having a better character, but having a different one. I'll happily give up spells and additional favoured enemies in exchange for a comensurate ability that fits my character concept.

Players should not be penalised for having a clear character concept. It's counter-productive. I'll quote myself from the message you quoted:

Note that my issues above are just as much about denying certain abilities to my character as they are about giving him them. Plate armour, spells and barbarian rages don't match my character concept. I don't want them. But if I am stuck using the core classes, it's likely that they will have to get included.

One last time: well-designed PrCs are about giving and denying. They retain game balance while providing a more accurate mechanical model of a specific character concept than the core classes can provide.

If someone can provide me with reasons why the statement above is either (a) wrong or (b) misguided, then I'm interested in hearing them. But please don't pull out one clause and try to respond to it in isolation. I'll just remind you of all the other clauses.

And before anyone brings it up, I am quite aware that there are badly-designed/imbalanced PrCs out there. Hopefully I've made it clear by now that I don't advocate carte blanche acceptance of all PrCs - just those the DM considers to be balanced an appropriate in their current campaign.

 

[incognito]

Capellan: I'm sorry you cannot make a chracter that is not a close enough approxmiation of Robin Hood to suit your tastes without a PrC. That does not mean a PrC is required for a reasonable approximation, it means you are frustrated by some of the granted abilities (by your own admission), and want to give them up - but to "maintain balance" you want to recieve other abilities.

Well, as I have stated before, the classes are not balanced. Bummer, but there it is. What I am asserting is that adding PrCs does not typically maintain (and in my experience usually hurts) balance. In my opinion, if you need your character to be robin hood that badly, then play a game specifically designed with the Robin Hood character in mind. Other than that, I'm inclined to say "grin and bear it" becasue being Robin Hood is mre about the role-play. Maybe Robin Hood did cast spells...

Any D&D game world is full of fighters, wizards and rogues. They are generally not full of members of any one PrC

Yep, and still the PCs remain fairly special - and I'll ask again: are you saying you HAVE to have a PrC to be special?

Players can propose things, but the DM doesn't have to accept them.

Haven't I already stated that it's ok by me that players make a suggestion here or there? I just do not want that expectation, or for players to PLAN on designing a PrC to fit thier new character "concept" if thier original "day 1" character dies and is not raised.

In my experience, a minority of players who seek PrCs (custom or otherwise) are doing so with "improper intentions

Any number of you have quoted me on this - so I want to add an additional point of clarity. Players seeking greater effectiveness is natural desire. Is it not? Who amongst us want to be ineffective (at the very least, ineffective in our area of "expertise?") Yet, players may not realize how effective the abilities of a PrC can be, or may have an imprefect understanding of game balance as the DM sees it.

So while your players may not be actively be powergaming, they want something, in seeking a PrC. They may be willing to give up "something else." If NONE of the other core classes fit the mold of what they are looking for, why is it so shocking to question a player's motives? There is an awful lot contained in those core classes, even when just Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric is considered.

Also, and I'll repleat this in my next reply for barsoomcore, I have player 3E for ~2 years. Not the longest time, but not the shortest either. I have played in 4 groups, with no less that 12+(?) different players. While I cannot judge ALL players, or ALL campaigns, I feel I can make qualitative statements, based on logical arguments, that hold true for the majority of players or campains - not just the "special" ones...

If this set of message board respondents wants to refute my assertations on the basis of "my campiagn does not run this way..." we have a basic communication/discussion breakdown. I cannot "prove a negative." However, can we agree that it is possible for someone of experience (not me, mind you, just "someone") to make a argument, based on logic, that should apply to the majority, even though the majority is not able to voice thier opinion in this message board?

If I hear enough "no!'s" then I can give up now, since we cannot communicate effectively. If we can, I shall try harder to represent my arguments more logically or with more examples, or however the respondents might better like the argument/discussion presented.

[Whew!]

Sorry, but this is a completely spurious argument. PrCs are a part of the D&D game mechanics. You might as well say that allowing a PC to research a new spell or create a new magical item is "not D&D

Why do you quote me out of context, Capellan? That's not fair. This comment was SPECIFICALLY in repsonse to a game (seaong's in this case) in which the very way characters level is fundamantally different from core 3E. You just griped about another poster doing it to you, for the love of glub!

Let me end on a positive though:

First, let me say that I agree that most PrCs that give +1 caster level per level of the PrC are suspect, in terms of game balance. Especially classes that arcance casters can get into.

Here finally is somewhat of an agreement. Hopefully our first of many. Can someone chime in which just how many divine and arcane PrC have +1 caster level at every level through the course of the PrC?

On to barsoomcore!

 

[incognito]

Repeated for barsoomcore:

I have player 3E for ~2 years. Not the longest time, but not the shortest either. I have played in 4 groups, with no less that 12+(?) different players. While I cannot judge ALL players, or ALL campaigns, I feel I can make qualitative statements, based on logical arguments, that hold true for the majority of players or campains - not just the "special" ones...

If this set of message board respondents wants to refute my assertations on the basis of "my campiagn does not run this way..." we have a basic communication/discussion breakdown. I cannot "prove a negative." However, can we agree that it is possible for someone of experience (not me, mind you, just "someone") to make a argument, based on logic, that should apply to the majority, even though the majority is not able to voice thier opinion in this message board?

If I hear enough "no!'s" then I can give up now, since we cannot communicate effectively. If we can, I shall try harder to represent my arguments more logically or with more examples, or however the respondents might better like the argument/discussion presented.

{/end of copy}

Bar, while people may be interested in my specific campaign, I am not really interested, in a thread about game balance, in discussion how my game is or isn't working with certain rules. I am open to talking about that in other threads tho - start one and I'll post! So I make generalizations, becasue I am trying to relate to the general ENboard public - not you specifically. I present logical arguments for you and others to tear down. (or agree with )

If they're not right for your group, then you are right to ban them. Just like I'm right to ban elves, dwarves, halflings, half-orcs and gnomes. You don't need any reason beyond "I'm the DM."

Nope. Completely disagree. If you want to design a world without any PC races but human, there may be other broad changes that make ANY world view discussions invalid. Consider this thread similar to one that reads "Is Haste balanced as written?" If, in your campaign, there is no/very low magic - then clearly Haste cannot be. So why speak to the point?

 

[Capellan]

Also, and I'll repleat this in my next reply for barsoomcore, I have player 3E for ~2 years. Not the longest time, but not the shortest either. I have played in 4 groups, with no less that 12+(?) different players. While I cannot judge ALL players, or ALL campaigns, I feel I can make qualitative statements, based on logical arguments, that hold true for the majority of players or campains - not just the "special" ones...

The problem is, I've played 3E for a similar amount of time, in a similar amount of groups, with over a dozen players. And my experience is substantially different from the statements you have been making.

Possibly the people I play with are unusual. Possibly your statements are true of the majority of groups. But do I believe that a sample of 12 players is enough to make those statements with confidence? Quite clearly they are not, since I could make almost opposite statements based on my own, similar, amount of experience.

Here finally is somewhat of an agreement. Hopefully our first of many. Can someone chime in which just how many divine and arcane PrC have +1 caster level at every level through the course of the PrC?

Without having at hand every PrC that was every created, it's a little difficult to answer that question

For a guide, though, Tome and Blood - which was the only WotC splatbook to solely cover spell-focussed classes - gave full spell progression to 6 out of 15 PrCs: that's 40%.