I like Roles

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Shouldn't new players be all the more expected to map out their character progression more concisely? Or at least have a general idea of where to go with their PC? Else, they risk getting into the very scenario you envisioned - suddenly realizing that they took suboptimal choices, or being unable to qualify for a certain feat or prc at that particular point in time.

No, they shouldn't have to worry about the future. They have enough troubles learning to play the game.

The nicest way would be to develop your character organically:
Okay, so I am a Fighter. We'll see where this leads us.
Oh, cool, I love this Bastard Sword we've found. I'll train in its use.
Hey, looks like I take too much damage. I think I'll pick Toughness, and some of these self-healing powers.
Damn, the mayor of this city is a real douche. I pick up Diplomacy so we can make some alliances and get that nice Lady from the Merchant Guild into power... Or maybe myself?
Damn, the situation in this city is complex. I guess I should train Streetwise or History to get a little more out of it.
Wow, this +3 Flail looks really tempting, I guess I leave the Bastard Sword behind.
Three levels and no sign of getting back to the city! I guess I should focus less on Diplomacy and more on Endurance.
We seem to fight hordes of enemies lately, I think I'll need Cleave instead of Repeating Strike.

You don't know what your character will experience over time. It should be possible to grow into what is needed from you, instead of predicting what you'll need and carefully make every character option count to achieve that goal.


All this qualification stuff - you shouldn't get there because you planned to go there, but because it is a natural progression. You have picked the feats, skills, powers or classes required for a PrC or Feat because it made sense for your character at the time you took them, not because it just makes sense when you're taking the feat or PrC.

 

[Runestar]

You don't know what your character will experience over time. It should be possible to grow into what is needed from you, instead of predicting what you'll need and carefully make every character option count to achieve that goal.

Like you said, it should, but in 3e, it doesn't work. When you consider feat-intensive options like whirlwind, 3-mountains or prestige classes like the archmage or loremaster, you are encouraged to start mapping out your character progression right from the beginning to end, so ensure that you can transition seamlessly from 1 level to the next.

For example, archmage requires that you know spells from 5 different schools. This is no problem for a wizard, but if you are a sorcerer (and do plan on entering said prc at lv15+), you will need to start planning your spell selection from lv10 onwards, to ensure that you have prerequisite spells to take it. Rather than simply choose whatever spell catches your fancy, only to go "Oh crap, looks like I won't be entering archmage anytime soon" when you finally do take a look at it at like...lv13 or 14?

It is not necessarily impossible to rationalize this in-game. For example, when picking up feats to qualify for a prc, you can explain those feats as being apt for someone of your personality. The prc is merely a natural extension of your base class(es), rather than being a separate career choice you have to justify taking. Don't see a barb/fighter/bear warrior/warshaper/frenzied berserker build as some munchkin'ed frankenstein of a build. Consider how well they complement one another, both mechanically and thematically.

My advice for new players would be to either take some time to carefully plan out what you want to play beforehand, or simply playing a more idiot-proof class which is more forgiving of play errors (eg: selecting a barb over a fighter, or a warmage over a sorceror). I certainly wouldn't expect them to just jump straight into the game with no idea of what to expect of their PCs. 3e is a game which ultimately rewards system mastery, after all.

 

[xechnao]

plan on entering said prc at lv15+

Yeah but this is nonsensical. It means nothing "I plan to become an archmage at level 15+".
One could say I plan to learn/improve on certain skills so I qualify to expand on something else when I have done it. But this level thing accustomed to this is somewhat idiotic. This is a problem of reason regarding D&D.

 

[delericho]

Like you said, it should, but in 3e, it doesn't work. When you consider feat-intensive options like whirlwind, 3-mountains or prestige classes like the archmage or loremaster, you are encouraged to start mapping out your character progression right from the beginning to end, so ensure that you can transition seamlessly from 1 level to the next.

Indeed. Had they wanted to fix this, I would have suggested the following:

1) No more bad feats. If you're only getting seven feats ever, they pretty much all have to count for something. So, either make Toughness worth something in its own right, or remove it from the game.

2) Reduce the depth of feat chains, so that no capstone feat requires more than (maybe) 4 other feats to get. However, add some synergies between feat chains, such that a character following both the 'mobility' and 'expertise feats' gains some benefit at all steps along the chain, over and above the benefits that would come from following one to the exclusion of the other. (This goes some way to provide niche protection for the Fighter, in that he will be able to combine far more chains than any other character.)

3) Similarly, reduce the requirements for Prestige Classes across the board. At the same time, introduce a minimum level required to enter the class. So, perhaps the Archmage still requires that you be 15th level to enter, but you don't need to build to that point from 1st level to get there, and can branch out in other directions as you go.

Finally, although it would be really bad from a 'selling books' point of view, 3e would benefit from reducing the amount of specialisation that is possible within the system. The biggest example of this is the monsters that the Fighter can hit on anything but a natural 1, while everyone else requires a 20, or saves that are trivial for some characters and near-impossible for others.

However, there are other specialisations built into the game (and these become more numerous and more tightly defined as the number of supplements goes up), allowing for things like the Hulking Hurler, or whatever it was called. Since characters work within their niche the vast majority of the time, the system strongly rewards extreme specialisation... but it does this at the expense of strongly encouraging designing characters from 1st to 20th level at the outset.

 

[xechnao]

Btw I like the idea of 4e's combat roles and their distinction from non-combat roles that anyone can choose as needed: I think it is a progress in design for the game and kudos to the team that has decided to develop towards this path.
Of course I am still a critic of the implementation...

 

[Storminator]

Tell it, brother!

Can I get a "Hallelujah!?"

Let me hear you say "Amen!"

Does your M&M campaign have the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling in it? If not, I don't see how you can make that claim...

Well, the Nazi albino giant ape did use the National Zoo to kidnap President Roosevelt...

PS

 

[Runestar]

Yeah but this is nonsensical. It means nothing "I plan to become an archmage at level 15+".
One could say I plan to learn/improve on certain skills so I qualify to expand on something else when I have done it. But this level thing accustomed to this is somewhat idiotic. This is a problem of reason regarding D&D.

Of course it wouldn't mean anything in the game. Character levels are a metagame concept to begin with. They are there so you have something concrete to work with when building your character, something like lego bricks.

In game terms, archmage's high arcana could simply be an extension of your own innate sorcerous talents. The PC won't know that he has entered the archmage prc. To him, he is still a sorceror (or however he, and the world around him views himself), drawing on the legacy of his draconic forefathers and shaping them to his will. The high arcana simply represents the mastery he has over his powers, that he is able to perform feats normally unattainable to other sorcerers (such as arcane reach).

That he achieved these feats at lv15 is meaningless to him as well. To him, it simply represents the result of painstaking years spent honing his innate eldritch powers. The moment he enters the archmage prc represents the point in time he completely masters these powers.

 

[delericho]

If I recall my 3e DMG correctly, the original concept was that PrCs were intended to represent organisations and secret societies in the game world. So, a character who adopted the first level of the Archmage PrC would be recognised by the campaign world's equivalent of MENSA as being one of the greatest wizards of the age. As such, the title Archmage would have both an in-game and a game-rules meaning.

Of course, this concept was largely dropped almost immediately, when "Sword & Fist" introduced a large number of generic PrCs, many of which made more sense as lone operatives rather that being retrofitted to organisations the DM might introduce to his world.

Frankly, I preferred the original concept of PrCs, although even that I wasn't hugely keen on.

 

[Runestar]

Me - I just think that too much emphasis is being placed on the "prestige" aspect of prcs, to the extent of DMs imposing needless restrictions like having to take all 10 lvs of a prc before being able to take another class, being limited to just 1 prc and the like.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Like you said, it should, but in 3e, it doesn't work. When you consider feat-intensive options like whirlwind, 3-mountains or prestige classes like the archmage or loremaster, you are encouraged to start mapping out your character progression right from the beginning to end, so ensure that you can transition seamlessly from 1 level to the next.

I know that you have to do it this way in 3E, but I say that is a flaw that you don't need. There is no need for long feat chains that start with a lot of sucky feats just to get the final good one, or to require Toughness, Endurance, Skill Focus (Arcana) and Heighten Spell as prerequisite.

Of course, there are many reasons that 3E did it this way (take sucky feats to get awesome PrC abilities later, for example), but that doesn't make it a virtue.