Lame Prestige Classes

[Angel Tarragon]

There are no lame prestige classes. What is lame is a DM that can't figure how to tweak the prestige class to suit the needs of their campign. JMHO.

 

[GlassJaw]

Hmm, I like the Dungeon Delver. I've always wanted to play a dwarven ex-miner turned Dungeon Delver.

Honestly though, I think all PrC's have jumped the shark. I'd much rather play systems that are PrC-less like Grim Tales or Conan.

 

[Cherub]

There are no lame prestige classes. What is lame is a DM that can't figure how to tweak the prestige class to suit the needs of their campign. JMHO.

when i am paying the bucks for it, i dont need to have to spend more time toying around something that needs "tweaking". It should be workable. The only tweaking it needs are fluff-oriented for the purpose of fitting with the setting and ambience in question, not crunch based. JMHO

 

[FireLance]

Heirophant--what cleric or druid in his right mind is going to give up spell levelsfor a couple of tricks? Why would a heirophant be less powerful than a cleric or druid of equal level? Who designed this POS?

Just one note about the Heirophant: it doesn't gain spells per day, but it does gain caster levels. So, it's a nice PrC to get into at epic levels when your spells per day aren't going to increase anyway.

I don't like the Frenzied Berserker because I think the Strength boosts are over the top and I don't like PCs that are a danger to their own parties, but I can see why it might appeal to others.

Offhand, I can't think of any PrC that I truly dislike, but if I do, I'll post back here.

 

[Klaus]

Well, I was going to take you to task for this particularly strange portrayal, but it would appear that a bunch of people already have. I'll just add:

The "Assassin" PrC isn't representative of all "assassins" in exactly the same way that the "Barbarian" class isn't representative of all "barbarians."

Anyone can kill someone else for money, and thus call themselves an "assassin."

The "Assassin" PrC represents a member of a typical fantasy-novel Assassin's Guild - you know, the kind who plague cities, make pacts with dark powers, etc.?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Saeviomagy]

While cruising the boards over the last few days I've been reminded of why certain prestige classes WotC has cranked out to fill sourcebooks just blow chunks. Here are a few I loathe and why I loathe them.

• Assassin--this is a profession, not a class. But hey, let's throw spells on it, because that makes total sense thematically for the sneaky guy who kills people!

• 
  Sneaky guy who has joined an organisation of killers and learned their secrets. He's not just a sneaky guy that kills people - the PrC prerequisite makes that fairly clear.
  

  [*]Devoted Defender--let's create a PrC whose shtick is taking hits for his buddies, which any character should be able to attempt.

  They can. Combat reflexes + stand between the enemy and your charge does a half-decent job. But it's far from perfect.
  

  [*]Dungeon Delver--a class that's really good at finding treasure and disarming traps? It's called the rogue, genius. Let's throw magic on this one too, just because spells are the quick fix to everything in 3E!

  Of course, if a player finds he's doing just fine with rogue, then he won't take this class.
  
  Unless he wants spells. Then he might look at dungeon delver.
  

  [*]Forsaker--I hate magic! That's why I carry around bags of potions to destroy so I can keep my class features!

  Forsakers suck. You're totally right. Mostly because it almost seems like they're designed to be disruptive in the average party or campaign.
  

  [*]Frenzied Berserkzer--got an enchanter in your group to control this monstrosity? No? Then let it go.

  Enchanter, nets, the ability to run fast, the ability to hide well etc etc. The main problem with this class is that it doesn't advise the DM "Warning, this PrC may well totally ruin your game. Before one party member takes it, he should clear it the rest of the party".
  

  [*]Heirophant--what cleric or druid in his right mind is going to give up spell levelsfor a couple of tricks? Why would a heirophant be less powerful than a cleric or druid of equal level? Who designed this POS?

  Ok, heirophant (and to a lesser degree archmage) I can agree are slightly silly. Basically they're classes that are explicitly designed to grant some feat-like abilities. I think they may have been better implemented as a group of feat chains.
  

  [*]Red Wizard of Thay--what rocket scientist thought this was a good idea? "I cast fireball! Make a DC 24 Reflex save!"

  A cabal-oriented wizard is a staple of fantasy. Along with that are the concepts that group-cast spells are more powerful etc etc. Unfortunately the mechanics are such that said wizard can be powered up at the beginning of a day and then run-riot. If the power boost was restricted in duration to a round (or two), then I'm sure there would be no problem with the class in play, as the assistant casters would actually need to be present. There's certainly no problem with the basic concept.
  
  PrC's that I actually loathe?
  
  Anything that is race specific. I don't particulary see why dwarves should be the only ones capable of learning a defensive style, or why only elves can be bladesingers, or why only gnomes can be tricksters etc.
  
  PrCs that have a great concept, but are so mechanically underpowered that they're basically not worth the paper they're printed on. That evil druid one is a prime example - it can be far better implemented by just saying "just use all the druid stuff, but make it look skeletal and rotten".
  
  Cleric PrCs. Clerics don't gain anything that they can give up except spellcasting. So a cleric PrC has to either reduce spellcasting, OR take away existing features (ie - restrict armour use, remove domains, remove access to individual spells and the like). Most of them right now are just granting features - once you pay the entry price you're way better off with a PrC than without.
  
  PrCs that fill niches badly. For instance - so far there are a few PrCs that blend druid and wizard, but all of them add some sort of 'twist' to the mix. None of them have the end result that you'd expect of a blend of druid and wizard, mostly because they all give away significant abilities of the druid. And chances are that because there are a group of PrCs already filling the gap, no more will be made for it.

 

[Alloran]

when i am paying the bucks for it, i dont need to have to spend more time toying around something that needs "tweaking". It should be workable. The only tweaking it needs are fluff-oriented for the purpose of fitting with the setting and ambience in question, not crunch based. JMHO

Isn't the point of gaming, and in particular being a DM, building your world and making it your own? That's why I do it. I understand taking something out of a FR book or whatnot, but for me a lot of the fun of the game comes when a player says 'I want to play suchandsuch class' and figuring out WHY that class would be there. And if something comes right down to numbers, 'crunch based,' then it's something to work with the player on. ::shrug::

 

[MadMaxim]

Paladins get magic because there are cleric-y warriors, it makes a little sense. Rangers get magic because of Tolkein; Aragorn used healing abilities, and he was a ranger, ergo rangers get healing. Yes, I know he had healing abilities because he was a true king or whatever, don't blame me I didn't make the class.

If paladins are cleric-like then rangers get spells because they're druid-like, that would be my guess. By the way, I love prestige classes.

 

[ForceUser]

Well, I was going to take you to task for this particularly strange portrayal, but it would appear that a bunch of people already have.

you know, Patryn, your consistently condescending demeanor on these boards makes me wish that I could reach through my computer monitor and choke you into unconsciousness. Be glad that I can't.

 

[Romnipotent]

yeah... play gurps... no classes to stuff you around