How many PrC is okay?
- Thread starter Mordane76
- Start date
Capellan
Explorer
incognito said:
These are good things, but everybody gets them. Only a select few can ever be an {insert PrC of choice}.
Case in point: my Robin Hood example from above. Are you really telling me that generating him simply as a Fighter / Ranger would be anywhere near as distinctive and "true to the concept" as a PrC would be?
incognito said:
To answer the questions in order:
Because it's their character. Theirs, not mine. They have every right in the world to have input into how the character should develop, just as I have every right to say: "no, you can't have ability X, because it would break the campaign. How 'bout we tweak it and make it ability Y?"
Yes, players help design the world. Either intentionally: "you know, it would be cool if XYZ" or unintentionally "is there any way to ABC? how about people who do DEF?". I'm always listening to what my players say: there are the germs of some great ideas in there. Character backgrounds are another great way in which they fill in details of the game world, as well. (in fact, in arwink's game, PCs are encouraged to develop parts of the game world)
Non-standard monsters: during initial development, naturally not. That would spoil the fun and excitement for them when they encountered the beasts. I would definitely ask for their opinions after they had fought them, however. And I'd be more than willing to make adjustments based on their comments, if they made good points.
Ditto for dungeons. (For the record, I consider these questions a fundamentally spurious argument: players not knowing about new monsters and dungeons is a fundamental of the game. Equally, knowing what their characters can do is also fundamental. It's apples and oranges. And suddenly I'm hungry ...)
As for custom deities, I would listen to the player's proposal. If I felt that they were suggesting the deity solely for gains in the game mechanics (eg the deity had all the coolest domains) then I would probably disallow it. Just as I would a PrC that was designed on the same basi. If, however, the deity had been designed to fit in with a character concept, and filled a useful niche in my game's pantheon, I'd be happy to accomodate them.
incognito said:
Are your players really so insecure that they would see developing a PrC for another player as "improper"? Do they think you're scheming behind their back if you ever talk to a player away from the table? There's nothing to stop them from coming up with their own PrC ideas, after all.
Over the course of this thread, your argument seems to have shifted from "a character shouldn't have more than 1 PrC" to "a player shouldn't be involved in developing a PrC" to "characters don't need PrCs".
Fundamentally, it sounds like you don't like PrCs. Don't like the concept, don't like the execution, and feel the options they give to players are excess to requirements. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me like we aren't ever going to get anywhere in this conversation when the basic positions are:
incognito: PrCs are a bad idea
Capellan: PrCs are a good idea
O' course, if I've misunderstood your position, feel free to rebut
Last edited:
randomling
First Post
I'm not a very experienced DM (yet), but I think that while I want the PCs' characters to be as close to their concept as possible, I still want my world to be my world. If a character wants to take a prestige class with such-and-such a concept and it fits into the setting, then I'll design a PrC with that concept -- but I would get the final say on abilities, duties, flavour text and all the rest. (Of course, then it's a free choice on the part of the player whether they want to take it or not.)
But that's just me.
But that's just me.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Reward? Why do you assume a level of a prestige class is a reward? Isn't it just what a player has the right to acquire in exchange for the XP they receive? XP, that's a reward. But a class level? I don't get it.incognito said:
Prestige class levels are no more or less a "reward" than core class levels. Once you've decided that a given prestige class is appropriate for your campaign, how is taking a level in it a reward?
Again with the weird choice of words. "Need"? They don't NEED to be involved. If I say to them, "You can't be involved in PrC design," then they'll just say, "Fine." I can't imagine players arguing that they NEED to be involved.
Now I like to have my players involved in lots of design work all over my campaign. Why should I have to do all the thinking? And why not incorporate their suggestions and speculations? They are reasonably intelligent, after all (that's why I'm playing with them) and they happen to have a similar gaming attitude to me (that's also why I'm playing with them), so why wouldn't they be able to come up with cool ideas that fit right in?
Often they don't even know they're helping. Many times I just listen in on their conversations and jot down their better speculations. Sometimes I want their input before I decide on something -- maybe just as simple as "Check the math on this, did I get it right?"
So if a player came to you and said, "Hey, I'm just dying to play a duelist. Honestly, I just really want that Canny Defense and Precise Strike. It'll be soooooo cool!" you would honestly tell them that they've got enough options already and should just be grateful for what they get? I mean, it's your campaign and you need to do what you think is best, but I try to make sure all my players have fun and if Fred explained that he would be having more fun with a given prestige class, I would make an effort to meet him half-way on that.
Maybe you can afford to turn good players away. I play with my buddies and I want everyone to have fun. I also happen to think that when playing a game, if you're having fun, you're doing it right.
Do you seriously have this problem with the people you game with? My sympathies. I'm lucky enough to have players who understand that they can come to me with their ideas and I'll make every effort to give them what they want.
They also understand that I will fiendishly twist and distort their desires into hideous grotesqueries that drive them insane and seet the entire world against them unjustly. That's why they love me so much.
seasong
First Post
Just so's we're clear: I agree with you. I get final say on anything that comes into my campaign, too. There are exceptions to that, but they are usually campaign specific (my current superhero soap opera, for example, puts a lot of control in the players' hands).randomling said:
Don't sell yourself short. The above is pretty good sense.
Capellan
Explorer
randomling said:
Agreed. The DM knows what will and won't break their campaign, and has the final word on whether a specific power or PrC will be allowed (for instance, one of my PCs asked if a particular PrC would be available, and I said no). But I do feel that the option for PCs to make suggestions and requests should always be open.
incognito
First Post
Ok, I'm back - I'm going to speak to capellan's response first, becasue seasong got all the reply soptlight time, last time.
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.
Serveral ENBoarders have asked if my players are so insecure that giving a player a PrC, or the ability to define a PrC would cause grief. And to that I reply: OF COURSE IT WOULD!
Why?
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
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?
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.
And Capellan. I don't give two figs if it IS thier character. I am the DM, it's my world! For example: I think polymorph self is too powerful a spell, as players run around as trolls, until they can run around as Stone Giants. This is simply my opinion. And in MY game, if you want to play, you accept the fact that Trolls are considered magical beasts (so you don't keep your items when you x-form), and that Stone giants are 16 HD (15 HD is the Maximum for Poly-self). If they cannot accept this condition, I certainly do not force them to play. And no one's left yet...
Should players have some say over thier characters? Absolutely. This is what the core classes are for. And before I modify a core class ability I consult with my players, as not to do so violates the player-DM contact as I see it. they can also role-play as they see fit (within the guidelines of thier alignment, lest it change). They are also oick any path they want in my world, adventuring wise. That is the player freedom.
PrCs are in the DMG, and that's MY book. Players have no say over what goes on in there, likewise the MM. If I ASK for input (and I have, in the case where I created a new Monster, and wanted to make sure the chracters thought the CR was correct, but I posted it to the ENboards and other boards too.) then fine, I ask for it. But I do not want my playes designing my world.
If there were no duelists in my world, then that is exactly correct. Becasue he could just as easily have said. Hey, I think the "Spell-casting Prodigy" feat is cool. And now I have to explain to him why this feat (in my opinion), is broken. If he wants to play in a game where there are duelists, then there are games where they exist. Go nuts. I won't hate him for hit. But look clsoely at your quote "canny defense and precise strike [snip]...so cool!"Clearly this character is less interested in role-playing, and more interested in abilities.
That is not saying the things they do influence the world. It does, but it's still my world to influence. See, I've got to want to run a story line, if there is going to be one. That's why I don't allow evil chracters. I don't like those story lines, generally.
More thoughts...
QUOTE]Over the course of this thread, your argument seems to have shifted from "a character shouldn't have more than 1 PrC" to "a player shouldn't be involved in developing a PrC" to "characters don't need PrCs".[/QUOTE]
I want to be clear so I say this (sigh) again.
A) Characters having more than one PrC is VERY iffy
B) PrCs are not needed. You can run a campaign without anyone taking a level in a PrC.
C) PrCs, in my mind, are special. Thier primary focus should be role-playing based, rather than feat, and skill pre-req based (although I am happy these pre-reqs exist).
D) Players who actively seek PrCs and or custom PrC generally DON'T have the best intentions in mind. They want new toys.
E) If the levels in core class you are currently in does not provide enough toys for your player, the class is either front loaded, or you are a power gamer (or munchkin).
F) Being a Power Gamer (or munchkin) is fine if that is what all the players and the DM want. Otherwise it is annoying, at best.
H) Designing or allowing characters access to a PrC, because his class is front loaded, sometimes (IMO usually) does not solve this problem - it also detracts fmor the veracity of C)
Finally:
Seasong, Capellan, barsoomcore, Mordane76: If you want your players to be involved in every aspect of your game design, so be it. I won't tell anyone how to run thier game. I think most of us stick to "DM makes world." with respect to cusotmizing the word, I think we all have tweaks, but that many of the basics are maintained. In this you are probably the exception seasong - your world has pretty non-standard advancement, amogst other things.
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.
Within the concept of the DnD game, I am looking for here isthe nod towards balance, and reason. Players do not NEED to be involved in every aspect of the game, in fact. It is likely to be more detrimetal, than less.
I used to play a game call Magic: The Gathering. It was simple at first. Play land, tap land for mana to summon creatures or spells, and attack. Hit your opponent for 20 pts of damage, and he's out. As the game got more an more complex, it became mroe about arguing about the timing of interrupts and instants (types of cards), and phases (parts of your turn), than it did about playing the cards. Now we call is Magic: the Arguing
What a buzz kill.
But 3E is rules heavy to start with. Most of the changes I make, I try to keep simple, so as not to confuse the game.
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.
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.
Serveral ENBoarders have asked if my players are so insecure that giving a player a PrC, or the ability to define a PrC would cause grief. And to that I reply: OF COURSE IT WOULD!
Why?
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
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?
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.
And Capellan. I don't give two figs if it IS thier character. I am the DM, it's my world! For example: I think polymorph self is too powerful a spell, as players run around as trolls, until they can run around as Stone Giants. This is simply my opinion. And in MY game, if you want to play, you accept the fact that Trolls are considered magical beasts (so you don't keep your items when you x-form), and that Stone giants are 16 HD (15 HD is the Maximum for Poly-self). If they cannot accept this condition, I certainly do not force them to play. And no one's left yet...
Should players have some say over thier characters? Absolutely. This is what the core classes are for. And before I modify a core class ability I consult with my players, as not to do so violates the player-DM contact as I see it. they can also role-play as they see fit (within the guidelines of thier alignment, lest it change). They are also oick any path they want in my world, adventuring wise. That is the player freedom.
PrCs are in the DMG, and that's MY book. Players have no say over what goes on in there, likewise the MM. If I ASK for input (and I have, in the case where I created a new Monster, and wanted to make sure the chracters thought the CR was correct, but I posted it to the ENboards and other boards too.) then fine, I ask for it. But I do not want my playes designing my world.
If there were no duelists in my world, then that is exactly correct. Becasue he could just as easily have said. Hey, I think the "Spell-casting Prodigy" feat is cool. And now I have to explain to him why this feat (in my opinion), is broken. If he wants to play in a game where there are duelists, then there are games where they exist. Go nuts. I won't hate him for hit. But look clsoely at your quote "canny defense and precise strike [snip]...so cool!"Clearly this character is less interested in role-playing, and more interested in abilities.
That is not saying the things they do influence the world. It does, but it's still my world to influence. See, I've got to want to run a story line, if there is going to be one. That's why I don't allow evil chracters. I don't like those story lines, generally.
More thoughts...
QUOTE]Over the course of this thread, your argument seems to have shifted from "a character shouldn't have more than 1 PrC" to "a player shouldn't be involved in developing a PrC" to "characters don't need PrCs".[/QUOTE]
I want to be clear so I say this (sigh) again.
A) Characters having more than one PrC is VERY iffy
B) PrCs are not needed. You can run a campaign without anyone taking a level in a PrC.
C) PrCs, in my mind, are special. Thier primary focus should be role-playing based, rather than feat, and skill pre-req based (although I am happy these pre-reqs exist).
D) Players who actively seek PrCs and or custom PrC generally DON'T have the best intentions in mind. They want new toys.
E) If the levels in core class you are currently in does not provide enough toys for your player, the class is either front loaded, or you are a power gamer (or munchkin).
F) Being a Power Gamer (or munchkin) is fine if that is what all the players and the DM want. Otherwise it is annoying, at best.
H) Designing or allowing characters access to a PrC, because his class is front loaded, sometimes (IMO usually) does not solve this problem - it also detracts fmor the veracity of C)
Finally:
Seasong, Capellan, barsoomcore, Mordane76: If you want your players to be involved in every aspect of your game design, so be it. I won't tell anyone how to run thier game. I think most of us stick to "DM makes world." with respect to cusotmizing the word, I think we all have tweaks, but that many of the basics are maintained. In this you are probably the exception seasong - your world has pretty non-standard advancement, amogst other things.
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.
Within the concept of the DnD game, I am looking for here isthe nod towards balance, and reason. Players do not NEED to be involved in every aspect of the game, in fact. It is likely to be more detrimetal, than less.
I used to play a game call Magic: The Gathering. It was simple at first. Play land, tap land for mana to summon creatures or spells, and attack. Hit your opponent for 20 pts of damage, and he's out. As the game got more an more complex, it became mroe about arguing about the timing of interrupts and instants (types of cards), and phases (parts of your turn), than it did about playing the cards. Now we call is Magic: the Arguing
What a buzz kill.
But 3E is rules heavy to start with. Most of the changes I make, I try to keep simple, so as not to confuse the game.
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.
Last edited:
incognito
First Post
I should conceded a few points to illustrate that the poster to this thread have impacted my thinking.
Yes, it is possible to have player/DM co-design in some aspects of game play.
Yes, it is possible to use PrCs and have no shred of power-gamey-ness, or munchiness.
Yes, it is possible that I am biased against PrCs (as seen in another general thread wheer the Dwarven defender was beign...um..."considered"
but I also believe that my bias has independent merit (in other words, other people can see why I'd be biased. I'm not crazy! (until the meds wear off...)
Yes, it is possible to have player/DM co-design in some aspects of game play.
Yes, it is possible to use PrCs and have no shred of power-gamey-ness, or munchiness.
Yes, it is possible that I am biased against PrCs (as seen in another general thread wheer the Dwarven defender was beign...um..."considered"
but I also believe that my bias has independent merit (in other words, other people can see why I'd be biased. I'm not crazy! (until the meds wear off...)
seasong
First Post
1) Player-driven content. Depending on the campaign, I can vary from almost entirely player-driven content to no player-driven content at all. Incognito falls on the no player-drive content at all side of things, but recognizes that other people do it differently. Fair enough.
1a) Without player-driven content, all content is limited to what the DM has time to put "sufficient effort" into. This restricts certain kinds of content, simply because, practically speaking, the DM can't do it for one player and have time for the others as well. Custom PrCs is one of these things. This is a practical consideration, based on (1), above.
1b) If the DM can't do it for all players, it's unfair. This is true. And with incognito's stance on (1), and the practical considerations of (1a), that means a fair campaign run by incognito will not have any custom PrCs in it.
Incognito, let me know if I've misrepresented the above.
I'm not going to argue with incognito about the above points. I think that we've already established the disagreement, and the only argument I can make is that he shouldn't run his campaign the way he does... which I am most unwilling to do. After all, I run some of my campaigns that way, and it would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise.
2) Player motives are suspect. Some people may have awesome players whose motives during character creation are pure as the driven snow, but incognito hasn't met them. This means, and I quote here:
"If the levels in core class you are currently in does not provide enough toys for your player, the class is either front loaded, or you are a power gamer (or munchkin)."
This is half-right. If it doesn't provide enough toys, it is front-loaded, no bones about it. This is an issue that plenty of core classes have. However, and I'm quite serious, players wanting to advance in cool ways when they've earned the experience to do so, and all past levels have set a standard for a particular coolness of advancement, are not powergamers.
Powergamers (and munchkins) are those who try to exceed the previously set standard, exceed the other players, and exceed the DM's expectations. A player who is simply dissatisfied with the front-loading of the class does NOT equal a powergamer (or munchkin).
The key to all of this is in the words "enough toys". Incognito clearly feels that a +1 to BAB and another Remove Disease per day is "enough toys". And if the previous levels set that as the standard, I would agree - players value consistency more than a particular rate of advancement. But the previous levels set a very different standard, and that is a fault in the system, not the players.
On to the quoting
My arguments (for example, advancement consistency, discussed above) hold water in or out of D&D - they are in the lofty realm of theory.
I also make sure my players know - screw with stuff too badly, and I'll take it away. Since they know that going in, we don't have problems.
To put this another way: Sticking to core rules and no PrCs does not provide what you say you want. It does not nod to balance or reason. It only nods to arbitrary decisions.
That's why a DM exists - to make the case-by-case decisions, and make the game something better than a computer-RPG.
1a) Without player-driven content, all content is limited to what the DM has time to put "sufficient effort" into. This restricts certain kinds of content, simply because, practically speaking, the DM can't do it for one player and have time for the others as well. Custom PrCs is one of these things. This is a practical consideration, based on (1), above.
1b) If the DM can't do it for all players, it's unfair. This is true. And with incognito's stance on (1), and the practical considerations of (1a), that means a fair campaign run by incognito will not have any custom PrCs in it.
Incognito, let me know if I've misrepresented the above.
I'm not going to argue with incognito about the above points. I think that we've already established the disagreement, and the only argument I can make is that he shouldn't run his campaign the way he does... which I am most unwilling to do. After all, I run some of my campaigns that way, and it would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise.
2) Player motives are suspect. Some people may have awesome players whose motives during character creation are pure as the driven snow, but incognito hasn't met them. This means, and I quote here:
"If the levels in core class you are currently in does not provide enough toys for your player, the class is either front loaded, or you are a power gamer (or munchkin)."
This is half-right. If it doesn't provide enough toys, it is front-loaded, no bones about it. This is an issue that plenty of core classes have. However, and I'm quite serious, players wanting to advance in cool ways when they've earned the experience to do so, and all past levels have set a standard for a particular coolness of advancement, are not powergamers.
Powergamers (and munchkins) are those who try to exceed the previously set standard, exceed the other players, and exceed the DM's expectations. A player who is simply dissatisfied with the front-loading of the class does NOT equal a powergamer (or munchkin).
The key to all of this is in the words "enough toys". Incognito clearly feels that a +1 to BAB and another Remove Disease per day is "enough toys". And if the previous levels set that as the standard, I would agree - players value consistency more than a particular rate of advancement. But the previous levels set a very different standard, and that is a fault in the system, not the players.
On to the quoting
I am. I'm also, for the most part, a non-D&D roleplayer. However, we're discussing theory, and I'm not bringing my alternate rules campaign into this - I'm talking entirely within the set rules of D&D straight up, no ice.
My arguments (for example, advancement consistency, discussed above) hold water in or out of D&D - they are in the lofty realm of theory.
A PrC, however, is not a change to the system. As above, this has nothing to do with my arguments.
By-the-book, a player can totally hose the balance of the game. It's as simple as that. A blanket rejection of PrCs will not fix that. If you want a balanced game, you must screen characters, and personally, I can screen PrCs as easily (if not more easily) as I can screen subtly designed core class Smackdowns.
I also make sure my players know - screw with stuff too badly, and I'll take it away. Since they know that going in, we don't have problems.
To put this another way: Sticking to core rules and no PrCs does not provide what you say you want. It does not nod to balance or reason. It only nods to arbitrary decisions.
That's why a DM exists - to make the case-by-case decisions, and make the game something better than a computer-RPG.
I'm sorry, because I don't want to flame anyone, but without PrC's, I find that all non-spellcasters become infinitely weaker than the 4 pure spellcasting classes. If you want to put it in previous terms, all of the non-spellcasters (I'll lump rangers, bards, and paladins in thie group) are front-loaded. When a DM refuses to allow custom content, I feel it only exacerbated the problem, and I'll explain why on both counts.
First, all of the non-spellcaster classes are the same, except for the feat picks they take. A fighter gets more picks, but also quickly gains all the valuable feats and is forced to either dilute their concept or pick sub-par feats. A wizard, on the other hand, gets an entire new spell level to pick from every 2 levels, and is able to research new spells (basically a new class ability) at will, and can create whatever magical items he wants. From a control prespective, the rules help a wizard to make his own magic and define his own content.
I recently wrote up a new character of mine, who's a spear fighter. Historically, and in fantasy, there are many famous spear-fighters, I simply like the style, and some of the mechanics are also to my liking. For my fighting, I could probably use Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, and Improved Critical. Assuming I don't decide that some of those feats are unnecessary, a human fighter will have all of those feats by level 10. These are the things that define my fighting style. Each level up to 10 gave me a new tool in my box which brought me up to the place where I envisioned my character from the start.
If my spear-fighter goes to level 11 now, then he gains no saving throw bonuses, no feat, and just +1 BAB. Level 12, he'll gain +1 to his saves, another BAB, and two feats that probably don't fit his concept. There is no reason that he'd take Quick Draw or Improved Disarm, but he has to take something. There's also no reason why he would multiclass into another core class. After all, he doesn't know that he's a fighter and Lidda's a rogue. He just knows that he can do these 10 special things, and Lidda can sneak around, disarm traps, and is good at getting in nasty shots when the other guy isn't paying attention. Aside from the artificial (from an in-character perspective) delineation of levels and classes, my spear-fighter is simply learning the best techniques for fighting with a spear. Assuming there is no fundamental limit in mastering a style at level 10, he should be able to increase his spear-fighting beyond that. Simply put, he needs either new feats for higher level spear-fighters, or he needs a prestige class that caters to a spear-expert. Otherwise, the artificial rules construct forces a character to develop differently.
Like I said incognito, I don't want to insult you, but I think you're way off base in player motives. Sure, there are a lot of powergamers out there. But a powergamer is going to powergame whether or not you limit their prestige class choices. Since you flatly refuse to design custom feats or prestige classes for your game, you are basically saying that a player must shoehorn his characters into the molds of whatever arbitrary sources you use. The only solutions to this are: 1) Get a larger amount of material for players to choose from. 2) Predict what your players will want and pre-emptively make it. or 3) Allow your players to design new abilities and submit them to you for approval. I'm aware that you're wary of a player slipping an unbalanced ability past you and that's fine. But like you said, "It's your world!" You can make it rain knives, and you can tell a player that his ability is under consideration and will be changed retroactively.
The final comment that I feel I need to get in is that it's really not "your" world. Sure, you are the DM, but it's as much the players' world as it is yours. If you refuse to let them impact it in any way, what's the point in having players? You might as well just write a short story and read it to your friends. It means you have to give up control and give the players genuine power, but if they can't be trusted with even a little bit of control, then you need to get new players. If a new "class" exists, does any of the millions of people in the world know that "Job-bob the spearchucker" is a Fighter 10/Chucker 1? They just know that he's got a cool technique for chucking spears, and when he rotates his wrist like so, he gets some extra distance on his throw.
-nameless
First, all of the non-spellcaster classes are the same, except for the feat picks they take. A fighter gets more picks, but also quickly gains all the valuable feats and is forced to either dilute their concept or pick sub-par feats. A wizard, on the other hand, gets an entire new spell level to pick from every 2 levels, and is able to research new spells (basically a new class ability) at will, and can create whatever magical items he wants. From a control prespective, the rules help a wizard to make his own magic and define his own content.
I recently wrote up a new character of mine, who's a spear fighter. Historically, and in fantasy, there are many famous spear-fighters, I simply like the style, and some of the mechanics are also to my liking. For my fighting, I could probably use Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, and Improved Critical. Assuming I don't decide that some of those feats are unnecessary, a human fighter will have all of those feats by level 10. These are the things that define my fighting style. Each level up to 10 gave me a new tool in my box which brought me up to the place where I envisioned my character from the start.
If my spear-fighter goes to level 11 now, then he gains no saving throw bonuses, no feat, and just +1 BAB. Level 12, he'll gain +1 to his saves, another BAB, and two feats that probably don't fit his concept. There is no reason that he'd take Quick Draw or Improved Disarm, but he has to take something. There's also no reason why he would multiclass into another core class. After all, he doesn't know that he's a fighter and Lidda's a rogue. He just knows that he can do these 10 special things, and Lidda can sneak around, disarm traps, and is good at getting in nasty shots when the other guy isn't paying attention. Aside from the artificial (from an in-character perspective) delineation of levels and classes, my spear-fighter is simply learning the best techniques for fighting with a spear. Assuming there is no fundamental limit in mastering a style at level 10, he should be able to increase his spear-fighting beyond that. Simply put, he needs either new feats for higher level spear-fighters, or he needs a prestige class that caters to a spear-expert. Otherwise, the artificial rules construct forces a character to develop differently.
Like I said incognito, I don't want to insult you, but I think you're way off base in player motives. Sure, there are a lot of powergamers out there. But a powergamer is going to powergame whether or not you limit their prestige class choices. Since you flatly refuse to design custom feats or prestige classes for your game, you are basically saying that a player must shoehorn his characters into the molds of whatever arbitrary sources you use. The only solutions to this are: 1) Get a larger amount of material for players to choose from. 2) Predict what your players will want and pre-emptively make it. or 3) Allow your players to design new abilities and submit them to you for approval. I'm aware that you're wary of a player slipping an unbalanced ability past you and that's fine. But like you said, "It's your world!" You can make it rain knives, and you can tell a player that his ability is under consideration and will be changed retroactively.
The final comment that I feel I need to get in is that it's really not "your" world. Sure, you are the DM, but it's as much the players' world as it is yours. If you refuse to let them impact it in any way, what's the point in having players? You might as well just write a short story and read it to your friends. It means you have to give up control and give the players genuine power, but if they can't be trusted with even a little bit of control, then you need to get new players. If a new "class" exists, does any of the millions of people in the world know that "Job-bob the spearchucker" is a Fighter 10/Chucker 1? They just know that he's got a cool technique for chucking spears, and when he rotates his wrist like so, he gets some extra distance on his throw.
-nameless
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (250) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027
