In lieu of prestige classes...

[Kae'Yoss]

I' thinking about a campaign setting with several rules modifications included.

One of them is borrowed from the Super NES game Seiken Densetsu 3 (sequel to Secret of Mana): Class Change. It's not PrC's, it's not Kits, its in between.

For every class, there are 3 class changes. You must have reached class level 10, and full one (or maybe more) other requirements, and you have to finish a quest (DM discretion). After that, you get additional class features for level 11+. (Note that I plan to get rid of magic items, so this plus in power won't hurt)

A rogue can turn into a ranger, an assassin or a consular, for example.

The system's still in early development.

Another possibility wold be heroic paths, which expand on your Prestige Feats: You need at least level x, and have other requirements, and then you get something special every time you level up, not related to your classes, but to the path.

 

[Mark Causey]

I'd be interested in seeing your write up for that, KaeYoss.

I find that the only thing that keeps me from being really happy with RPGs in general is not getting something neat at each level. Makes me want to make new characters all the time, try new stuff out.

 

[No Name]

Using schools is another good way to do this. FFG's DragonStar and Legends & Lairs books have plenty of ideas. For those of you unfamiliar, after a character joins an organization, he's trained in their ways. The character spends xp for the lessons, which have a minimum level requirement, and each lessons costs more xp than the previous. FFG's schools have 10 lessons, the final lesson costing 5500xp and having a minimum level of 20.

Each lesson adds some small improvement to a skill, save, ability, feat, or something that fits in with the organization. They can add +1 to a save for example, or improve the Dodge feat to +2 (either dodge two enemies with +1 each or +2 to a single enemy). It allows for more diversity when you have two PC monks in your campaign, and the only real difference between them is a couple of feats. But you can also use it to bring characters together, like when both druid and ranger have had the same training.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'd be interested in seeing your write up for that, KaeYoss.

As I said, it's all very early. I have to develop some of the base classes before I go into class change (I use EoM magic but change some stuff, so bard, priest, druid and wizard have to be made new)

 

[kigmatzomat]

I dunno if I'm on board with the PrFeat. It feels like a half-measure. I guess if I was going to have those I'd end up with a classless, level-based system with multiple feats/level, 2skill points/level, wizard BAB, and poor saves. New feats would be "increase caster level +1 from one spell list", "extra BAB", "extra skill points", "+1d6 sneak attack", "Add 4 class skills", "increase turning level +1", etc.

 

[sniffles]

Just curious, but if you're feeling overwhelmed by PrCs, why not limit what sources they can be taken from? That's a bit off topic, but just wondering.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Just curious, but if you're feeling overwhelmed by PrCs, why not limit what sources they can be taken from? That's a bit off topic, but just wondering.

That's too easy.

 

[Tonguez]

I've always hated PrC's (I'm not to hot on Class systems either but will live with them for DnD)

Anyway I long ago decided that membership of organisations would give a character access to a particular package of skills and feats which they could take as they progressed. Then modern gave us the notion of talent trees and that solved everything

SO imc a PC can go through the initiation rituals to get access to a Prestige package that works like a Talent tree eg A Rogue who specialises as a Burglar will get skill bonuses to climb, tumble and jump and talents from the 'stealth tree'

 

[Celebrim]

I hate prestige classes. I think that they are the worst thing that happened in 3rd edition. They are bad in every way. They are bad mechanically. They are bad for role play. And they are bad for creativity. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Mechanically, the whole point of prestige classes seems to be to give players more feats per level compared to some other class. Virtually every popular class either seems to be wizard with more feats and/or skills or fighter with more feats and/or skills. This is ridiculous. If the PC's needed more feats per level in order to capture the feel of certain concepts, then all classes should have been given more feats per level. This is to say nothing of the fact that many prestige classes are front ended with benefits. It appears to me that prestige classes are only taken when they are unbalanced. Judging from the classes players on these boards seem to favor, a balanced PrC seems to be of no interest to players.

In role play terms, prestige classes are huge step backwards in maturity because they encourage players to define their characters solely by what they can do mechanically rather than more broadly by who they are. It encourages players to think that 'fighter that wears light armor' is a character concept. While 3rd edition went a long way forward toward making the base classes broader and capable of accomodating more than a single sterotype, prestige classes seem to drag the game in the other direction - towards a single sterotype. On top of that, the greater sense of game ownership that 3rd edition encourages in the players leads them to demand and expect to be able to take a 'prestige class' even if they have no in character reason for doing so, to metagame character knowledge of what is presumably a small and often secretive organization, and to expect that any prestige class that tickles thier fancy ought to be readily available (at exactly the moment that they want to take it) regardless of the character of the campaign world that they are in.

There are no prestige classes in my games, and there never will be. If a player were to express interest in a prestige class I would try to find out what the player was actually interested in and work with that player to create a feat or feat tree that would approximate the class abilities of the intriguing prestige class. I don't believe that there is any concept that can be done with a PrC that can't be done with the proper feats and multiclassing, and if there is then either the concept is probably sufficiently broad as to need a base class or thier is something wrong with the flexibility of your base classes.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I hate prestige classes. I think that they are the worst thing that happened in 3rd edition. They are bad in every way. They are bad mechanically. They are bad for role play. And they are bad for creativity. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Your hat of PCr know no limit?

Mechanically, the whole point of prestige classes seems to be to give players more feats per level compared to some other class. Virtually every popular class either seems to be wizard with more feats and/or skills or fighter with more feats and/or skills.

I can't think of a single popular PrC that is like that.

This is to say nothing of the fact that many prestige classes are front ended with benefits.

That's not really a problem of the concept, but of the PrC's in question.

It appears to me that prestige classes are only taken when they are unbalanced. Judging from the classes players on these boards seem to favor, a balanced PrC seems to be of no interest to players.

I cannot agree to that, either. Do you have some examples for PrC's you consider balanced and that are not popular?

In role play terms, prestige classes are huge step backwards in maturity because they encourage players to define their characters solely by what they can do mechanically rather than more broadly by who they are. It encourages players to think that 'fighter that wears light armor' is a character concept. While 3rd edition went a long way forward toward making the base classes broader and capable of accomodating more than a single sterotype, prestige classes seem to drag the game in the other direction - towards a single sterotype.

It wasn't really better with Kits - with the difference that with 3e, you really can create most concepts without resorting to these optional rules.

And this is also only a secondary problem with the system. It's more a problem with people. Proper players know that concept and class aren't the same.

To use my favourite example: You can be an assassin without the Assassin PrC (depending on your definition, you don't even need rogue levels), but the PrC does offer some nice abilities for the concept.

On top of that, the greater sense of game ownership that 3rd edition encourages in the players leads them to demand and expect to be able to take a 'prestige class' even if they have no in character reason for doing so, to metagame character knowledge of what is presumably a small and often secretive organization, and to expect that any prestige class that tickles thier fancy ought to be readily available (at exactly the moment that they want to take it) regardless of the character of the campaign world that they are in.

Once again, this is more the players' fault than the PrC's fault. You can have the same thing without PrC's: People take levels of classes just to get the abilities, not to fit the concept - but since the concept is not really tied to class, I think it is okay for players to take things so they can get a benefit - as long as it is not carried too far.

Also, you have to distinguish between specialist-type PrC's and organizational-type PrC's. the specialist classes, representing a tighter focus on some aspect, aren't that different from base classes apart from the fact that they have technical entry requirements. The nimble rogue should have no more problems getting duelist levels than he has getting fighter levels (provided he fulfills the entry requirements). PrC's belonging to organizations, on the other hand, always require in-character work. You cannot become a Harper Agent just like that, they have to accept you in their ranks.