Lame Prestige Classes

[Particle_Man]

I should add that I think the Arcane Archer is sadly nerfed by 3.5 (no stacking the pluses of bows and arrows). Here we have a free source of magic arrows (not bad, but not awesome) which in effect makes you able to get a +1 bow and stack weird and crazy effects on it, but except for putting very minor spells onto those arrows (or putting someone minor spells and taking a hit to your BAB), all the other abilities apply once per day. Plus, by the time you get the fabled Death Arrow, almost any oppoenent worth your time will make the save.

 

[wingsandsword]

Prestige classes blow. They were made up for anime fanboys that spend too much time imagining final fantasy scenarios.

So you're saying everybody who uses Prestige Classes in their game are "anime fanboys" who play out "final fantasy scenarios."?

I guess Bards are so prophetic, since they were "final fantasy scenarios" before Final Fantasy even came out. The very concept of a Prestige Class is not unique to Third Edition, it was only clearly codified at that point. Multiclassing/Dual Classing through several classes to a certain point then diverging off in your progression along a related line was well established in D&D almost a decade before Squaresoft made Final Fantasy. 1st Edition Bard and Thief Acrobat (1e DMG), 2nd Edition Athasian Dragon (from Dragon Kings), or kits like Greenwood Ranger (from the Complete Rangers Handbook) were all Prestige Classes in the sense that you progressed (often through multiple classes) or specific class gaining specific requirements until your progression forked into a completely new and specialized or enhanced direction at a certain level once you had your prerequisites.

Now, instead of a variety of different rules for essentially the same thing (which long predated Final Fantasy's release in 1987, and dates to long before any significant spread of the Anime medium outside Japan), we have it all condensed into one rule system, the Prestige Class.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Plus, by the time you get the fabled Death Arrow, almost any oppoenent worth your time will make the save.

An issue that goes well beyond the confines of the arcane archer class.

But that's definitely a topic for another thread, if you want to continue it.

 

[Wolv0rine]

What chaffs me about the DMG Assassin PrC is that, just like everyone's saying, it's not a default Assassin PrC. I just looked to make sure I remembered right, and sure enough the 1E Assassin doesn't have a single spellcasting ability to his name. That Assassin was just what the title suggested: he was a killer for hire who's skillset was tailored to making him fearfully good at killing. If they wanted to present a specialist assassin too, that would have been fine and dandy, but presenting this spellcasting assassin variant as the only assassin class in the core books just doesn't make sense IMHO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That Assassin was just what the title suggested: he was a killer for hire who's skillset was tailored to making him fearfully good at killing. If they wanted to present a specialist assassin too, that would have been fine and dandy, but presenting this spellcasting assassin variant as the only assassin class in the core books just doesn't make sense IMHO.

Except he isn't the only assassin class in the core books. He's just the only one that happens to be called, specifically, "assassin."

The 1E Assassin can be pretty faithfully modeled with a Rogue and appropriate feat and skill choices - for most characters, 3d6 damage is enough to see them bleeding to death. The more generic killer-for-hire role can be well-filled by just about every class - again, with appropriate feat and skill choices (and, for some classes, spell choices).

This is, I think, one of the main shifts of 3E: you don't need a class, subclass, or kit for every possible character permutation or in-game role. What you need are base classes that are broad enough such that they can be customized to fit any (or most) roles. Want a mounted-combat-focused fighter? You don't the Equestrian Fighter kit or the Chevalier Paladin kit - you just need a Paladin or Fighter to take a certain set of feats.

"Killer for hire" isn't a role that needs a particular class devoted to it. "Secret Cabal of Amoral Killers for Hire, Steeped in Dark Arts, Who Only Accept the Worthy Into Their Ranks," however, has a better argument.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No-one wants to tell me how (or why!) PrC's are leaping over big fish? OK then. It will only rattle my brain for a while. Don't let it bother you. *sigh*

 

[Mouseferatu]

No-one wants to tell me how (or why!) PrC's are leaping over big fish? OK then. It will only rattle my brain for a while. Don't let it bother you. *sigh*

"Jump the shark" is an expression that dates back to an episode of Happy Days when the Fonze literally jumped over a shark on waterskis. Essentially, it referes to the point in a TV show where the best is over, and everything else is downhill.

A few years ago, it became popular net slang to refer to anything whose heyday was over, and was now all bad or downhill, as having jumped the shark.

How it could logically apply to a concept like PrCs, I have no idea, and no interest in trying to figure it out. Writing off an entire concept like PrCs just seems silly to me.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Except he isn't the only assassin class in the core books. He's just the only one that happens to be called, specifically, "assassin."

The 1E Assassin can be pretty faithfully modeled with a Rogue and appropriate feat and skill choices - for most characters, 3d6 damage is enough to see them bleeding to death. The more generic killer-for-hire role can be well-filled by just about every class - again, with appropriate feat and skill choices (and, for some classes, spell choices).

This is, I think, one of the main shifts of 3E: you don't need a class, subclass, or kit for every possible character permutation or in-game role. What you need are base classes that are broad enough such that they can be customized to fit any (or most) roles. Want a mounted-combat-focused fighter? You don't the Equestrian Fighter kit or the Chevalier Paladin kit - you just need a Paladin or Fighter to take a certain set of feats.

"Killer for hire" isn't a role that needs a particular class devoted to it. "Secret Cabal of Amoral Killers for Hire, Steeped in Dark Arts, Who Only Accept the Worthy Into Their Ranks," however, has a better argument.

Except they called the class Assassin, not Arcane Assassin of Shadows or some oher such thing. It's the presented "Assassin" class. As such, it should be an assassin, not a mystical spellcasting assassin. Just like when they introduced the Monk class back into D&D, they didn't give us a "Monk" class and make it a cabal of balding, portly
pacifist fellows who excell at scribing (and can cast spells, because everyone who's cool casts spells). No, they called it the Monk and they made it the Monk. The arguement that if you ignore the name can be reversed, in that the name has a pre-established D&D connotation that should have been kept in mind.

 

[Wolv0rine]

"Jump the shark" is an expression that dates back to an episode of Happy Days when the Fonze literally jumped over a shark on waterskis. Essentially, it referes to the point in a TV show where the best is over, and everything else is downhill.

A few years ago, it became popular net slang to refer to anything whose heyday was over, and was now all bad or downhill, as having jumped the shark.

How it could logically apply to a concept like PrCs, I have no idea, and no interest in trying to figure it out. Writing off an entire concept like PrCs just seems silly to me.

Actually, "Jumping the Shark" doesn't neccesarilly mean that it's reached it's zenith and only has the downhill ahead of it. Technically, it refers to something which has diverged from it's original premise or setup to a degree that it has lost touch with it's intended path or way. The Fonze jumping the shark is commonly held to be the point where the show had just completely lost it's way and forgotten what it was about, and thus past that point it was all downhill, because what made the show 'magic' had been lost.
In that vein, I think what was meant was that the idea of PrCs has been lost in the mix since the release (or maybe even the creation) of 3E, leaving us with (mostly) the plethora of PrCs for PrCs sake withouth the concept that they were created to fill.
I don't agree 100%, but I will say I've seen a fair bit of the phenomenon.

 

[Hairfoot]

My only real objection to prestige classes is the ruthless retro-building it requires at 1st level.

You can link up a great character concept with a perfect PrC, then you have to devise some trite reason for them to have 8 ranks in profession (sommelier), or contrive a situation where the PC must grapple an animated 4-poster bed in order to qualify.