Man, I miss the days of good, solid, utilitarian Prestige Classes

[Belen]

See above for why I don't completely agree. Feats are add-ons, extras, enhancements. A class is a path with give-and-take, and it has other things associated with it other than special abilities, as yourself pointed out. When a characters takes a level of havoc mage, he's actively sacrificing a level of advancement to get the ability to battlecast, as well as a better hit die and good Fort save. It makes him much more unique and balanced than just staying a wizard and expending a feat.

This is where we disagree. The feat is a core part of 3e. The PrC is the add-on. PrCs have always seemed twinky to me. They are a method for a character to gain abilities without much sacrifice. Most of the PrCs provide a boost in power without hurting a character in any way. Or they make a concept quicker or easier to attain than by multi-classing or good feat selection.

I can see the need for PrCs that mend some of the holes in the system, such as the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, or Mystic Theurge. Yet those PrCs that do not provide a patch invariably cater to the munchies.

I can see where you're coming from with this. The PrCs you like are invariably centered around combat power alone. They are only concerned with giving players a boost or an edge in combat.

Personally, I love the new format because it adds RP depth to the game, which has been lacking in the 3e rules set for some time. They really help a DM provide extra flavor to the game without causing the heartburn of providing massive player power ups.

 

[Turjan]

Yes, a lot of the broad concepts have had stabs taken at them. And in a lot of cases there's room for other approach. Not everyone's vision of a spiked-chain-wielding specialist is the the chain-swininging, pseudo-kyton boogeyman from Sword & Fist.

Then take the 'Spiked Chain Master' from 'Masters of Arms'. Or whatever. Let's face it, the number of really original prestige classes is low enough. When people talk about books like the "Complete" series, it's most of the time only one or two classes or prestige classes that get mentioned. The last thing I need is a legion of spiked-chain-wielding prestige classes, because one specific aspect of an existing take is not to my liking. What's wrong with the class from Sword & Fist? Is there anything to it that is irreparably broken (except the mechanics of the spiked chain itself)?

The reason for the existence of prestige classes is to allow concepts that are not possibly done with a combination of core classes. One example are multiclassed spellcasters, like a cleric/wizard, where core class D&D fails to produce viable options. Or take the arcane archer, which is a unique idea. Most of the other stuff is pretty generic, and I often don't see the need for it. On the other hand, organization-specific prestige classes are something I like.

 

[Felon]

PrC were designed for GMs, not players. They do not appear in the PHB. They appeared first in the DMG. They were a way for a GM to make a really unique NPC. Unfortunately, the concept was corrupted and players everywhere whined about needing a PrC when they could have done the same thing by either taking the required feats or multi-classing.

I feel pretty secure saying that, despite your matter-of-fact tone, your assertion that prestige classes were intended solely for NPC's is not actually supported by anything stated in any core book. You have drawn your own conclusion that because something is in the DMG, it is not intended for player consumption. Based on that rationale, magic items are in the DMG, therefore they are off-limits to PC's. Obviously, that's not the case. In both cases, that material appears in the DMG because they are options of an advanced nature that they think should be kept out of player hands until the DM makes a decision on how best to implement them.

I'm with you, Felon. My group still uses the weapon master, deepwood sniper, and other generic PrCs far more often than most of the newer, niche classes. I definitely see a need for, and like, the occasional niche class, but if the class would have worked as generic in the first place, I'd rather it have been generic, and then said "in the Realms, they are called Chondathan weapon masters", etc.

Exactly. And in the case of a Harper agent, there is simply no need for a prestige class. The class itself presents the player with nothing unique or special. A player gets their little Harper decoder ring and moves on.

 

[Felon]

This is where we disagree. The feat is a core part of 3e. The PrC is the add-on. PrCs have always seemed twinky to me. They are a method for a character to gain abilities without much sacrifice. Most of the PrCs provide a boost in power without hurting a character in any way. Or they make a concept quicker or easier to attain than by multi-classing or good feat selection.

There are rash statements contained above. Feats and prestige classes are both part of the core rules. When I say a feat is an add-on, I'm not referring to it in a derogatory manner. I'm saying a feat is something you get once in a while that allows you to both personalize and optimize your class. I would also defniitely argue that most prestige classes require some sacrifice. Some don't, but they're safely in the minoirty.

I can see where you're coming from with this. The PrCs you like are invariably centered around combat power alone. They are only concerned with giving players a boost or an edge in combat. Personally, I love the new format because it adds RP depth to the game, which has been lacking in the 3e rules set for some time. They really help a DM provide extra flavor to the game without causing the heartburn of providing massive player power ups.

These statements puzzle me. Combat power is pretty much what classes provide. Role-playing doesn't necessitate a class, feats, or special abilites. If you're talking using the title of the class as a way to immerse the players into the setting, then I agree and covered my position on that in my first post. The prestige class should be sufficiently adaptable that I as a DM can make use of it. I don't need classes like the knight of Silverymoon or gray hand of Waterdeep that gets a token or a beeper as a special ability.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Anyone else hear the *WHOOSH!* of a huge pendulum swinging?

I remember all the complaints about Eldritch Knight and other such purely mechanically designed PrCs, and everyone saying how they should be prestigious and all tied to a particular group or organization, and WotC was ruining PrCs by making them generic, and how WotC should start putting more fluff in their books, gosh darn it!

And now they have.

And people decide they don't actually want that, and now they want WotC to design non-fluffy PrCs that they can just adjust to their own campaign. Who is WotC to say what organizations should be in their campaigns? They should just make generic PrCs so that we can all adapt them to our world how we see fit.

Man, you can't just not please everyone; you can't please anyone.

 

[Abe.ebA]

My take on PrCs has always been that they existed as options to represent organizations, special training, or developments under unusual circumstances in a campaign world. Even the seemingly utilitarian ones like Exotic Weapon Master were, I assumed, meant to be used in conjunction with some guild of exotic weapon users in the DM's game.
Approaching PrCs from that viewpoint, it's the concept of basic, utilitarian PrCs that seems odd since it encourages PCs to just pick up levels of them as a way to add basic functionality to their character. Oddball niche PrCs, from this point of view, would make more sense as they would come with a background built in. They only become available when your PCs run into the organization or trainer or whatever that would allow them to take levels of it and then it's up to them if they want to take their character that way. Or perhaps you're running a Cormyr campaign and everyone has to have a level of purple dragon knight at some point to represent the fact that they're all supposed to be in the military together.
On the other hand, I don't really like the proliferation of dozens of 5 and 10 level PrCs. If it's basic and utilitarian, the options should be made available to normal PCs without having to take levels of a PrC. If it's really weird and organization specific and gives you little more than a decoder ring, I don't think it should require more than a 3-level investment. Maybe a few 1-level PrCs would be a better idea. You take a single level of Harper Agent or whatever and you get your decoder ring, then you move on without having taken too big a hit. As it is, every book has page upon page of 10 level PrCs that are, more than likely, not going to see use in most campaigns. When you have to take 10 levels of a class to see all its abilities in action, that represents a pretty big chunk of game time. I remember there was a poll here not long ago about how many of the core races and classes people had played. As it turns out, most people haven't played most of the possibilities available even in just the Core set. Throw in a hundred plus PrCs that require half of your character's pre-Epic advancement each and you have pages upon pages upon pages of material that, for most people, is wasted. So the only way that this makes sense, other than from a 'something to fill page count and make us more money' standpoint, is that PrCs really are meant as a DM option. But if that's the case, why even bother with odd niche PrCs? If they're for NPCs, shouldn't they all give weird powers to help the DM stop the players cold?

Oh well. The whole prestige class thing is weird and, IMO, a bit out of control. I personally prefer esoteric PrCs that give the character something really unique, even if it's not very tactically useful. I'd like to see more 3-level (or even 2-level or 1-level) PrCs to allow PCs to add a little flavor to their character rather than making a single PrC the focus of their entire campaign experience.

 

[Arnwyn]

and misses the days of PrC's that didn't think the "prestige" part had to come at the expense of there being an actual "class"?

Nope. I'm one of those who prefer the FR PrCs and how they fit into the campaign world. There are loads of existing generic books (and more coming down the line) that are loaded with generic PrCs. Leave the FR books to FR-specific PrCs, IMO.

Sorry, not with ya.

 

[Felon]

I remember all the complaints about Eldritch Knight and other such purely mechanically designed PrCs, and everyone saying how they should be prestigious and all tied to a particular group or organization, and WotC was ruining PrCs by making them generic, and how WotC should start putting more fluff in their books, gosh darn it! And now they have. And people decide they don't actually want that, and now they want WotC to design non-fluffy PrCs that they can just adjust to their own campaign.

People did not just suddenly get fickle and "decide they don't acutally want that". Some people (such as myself) liked the utilitarian nature of the prestige classes to begin with, and some were shocked and appalled by the notion that a prestige class shouldn't contain detailed information on the order of eldritch knights or the society of dwarven defenders or whatever. Many of the latter didn't get that the prestige classes were left open for the DM to mold into his campaign (i.e. they got all hot and bothered and outraged without actually reading the frickin' DMG"s explanation of how to use PrC's), and they complained because their desires were not represented.

And now the folks who liked the utilitarian PrC's are speaking up now that they're underrepresented. But it's hardly a unanimous response; there are people disagreeing.

IMO, the big mistake they made--and the best thing they've done recently--is to add a section for "adaptation" to the description of a prestige class. Something that makes it clear in big neon lights that "this class is for the DM to do with what he will; you decide what an eldritch knight is in your campaign. Here are some suggestions...".

 

[Felon]

Nope. I'm one of those who prefer the FR PrCs and how they fit into the campaign world. There are loads of existing generic books (and more coming down the line) that are loaded with generic PrCs. Leave the FR books to FR-specific PrCs, IMO.

The notion of having an FR-oriented PrC is not mutually exclusive with the idea of having a class that has general utility. The archmage and hierophant were originally FR classes. The incantatrix is another good example, as were the hordebreaker, giant-killer, and peerless archer from the Silver Marches setting. They got real, honest-to-gosh abilities, and represented specific roles in Faerun. Giant-killers are an appropriate PrC for the Silver Marchers and many other places in Faerun.

Waterdeep just came out, and there's not a PrC in it I can see being useful for players, and I have no idea why I would use them for NPC's since I can more easily create a grey hand or Moonstar agent using multi-classes or even PrC's from "generic" books like Complete Adventurer.

 

[Psion]

People did not just suddenly get fickle and "decide they don't acutally want that". Some people (such as myself) liked the utilitarian nature of the prestige classes to begin with, and some were shocked and appalled by the notion that a prestige class shouldn't contain detailed information on the order of eldritch knights or the society of dwarven defenders or whatever. Many of the latter didn't get that the prestige classes were left open for the DM to mold into his campaign (i.e. they got all hot and bothered and outraged without actually reading the frickin' DMG"s explanation of how to use PrC's), and they complained because their desires were not represented.

And now the folks who liked the utilitarian PrC's are speaking up now that they're underrepresented. But it's hardly a unanimous response; there are people disagreeing.

Hey, mon. I was out there trying to hold the tide back with a broom when it came to the folks who couldn't stand non-setting linked PrCs.

IMO, the big mistake they made--and the best thing they've done recently--is to add a section for "adaptation" to the description of a prestige class. Something that makes it clear in big neon lights that "this class is for the DM to do with what he will; you decide what an eldritch knight is in your campaign. Here are some suggestions...".

Yup. I like that too. As much greif as I gave FFG's old path books, one thing I always thought was way cool was that they separated the class from the background... but gave you both. That way, if you think the idea of the force mages being orcs is silly (as I did), you could totally scrap that and not even give it a second thought. But if you saw something cool and said "how could I use this in my game" (like the ring mages), there were ideas right there.