Nerf the Fighter!

[Viktyr Gehrig]

You're thinking of d20 Modern. In D&D, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having 20th level single-classed characters.

d20 Modern is even more designed with this in mind, but D&D itself seems to have been designed this way. It wasn't obvious when there were only the few PrCs in the DMG, but the proliferation of Prestige Classes from other sources, with the wide variety and the obviously different flavors has made it fairly obvious that PCs are supposed to adopt one or more Prestige Classes after about eighth level or so.

This is why spellcaster PrCs are allowed to be clearly better than spellcasting core classes, and why the other Prestige Classes have much more interesting, diverse abilities.

 

[hong]

d20 Modern is even more designed with this in mind, but D&D itself seems to have been designed this way.

If D&D was designed that way, they wouldn't have bothered putting in 20 levels of progression for everyone.

It wasn't obvious when there were only the few PrCs in the DMG, but the proliferation of Prestige Classes from other sources, with the wide variety and the obviously different flavors has made it fairly obvious that PCs are supposed to adopt one or more Prestige Classes after about eighth level or so.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Just because every gamer + dog can come up with a dozen PrCs, doesn't mean people are supposed to take them.

This is why spellcaster PrCs are allowed to be clearly better than spellcasting core classes,

Eh, that's just crappy design.

and why the other Prestige Classes have much more interesting, diverse abilities.

You'll note that the base classes are being rejigged in 3.5E so that they also get funky abilities past 10th level. That includes the fighter, via more high-level feats.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If that's the case, why aren't PrCs in the Player's Handbook?

We may have evolved that direction (much to my dismay), but that was never the original purpose or intent of prestige classes. I much prefer sticking to core classes over the long haul. Manu PrCs are powerful not because they're supposed to be an incentive to take, but because it's compensation for excessive specialixation, or just plain poor design.

As long as they're in the DMG, PrCs will remain completely optional.

Edit (or: what hong said).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

We don't play with prestige classes.

 

[Valiantheart]

If that's the case, why aren't PrCs in the Player's Handbook?

Because they are an asinine concept? Or because they encourage even more powergaming than 2Es kits? Or because most of them are so poorly designed as to make the core classes irrelevant?

The real reason is because the players arent supposed to know about PrCs. Characters werent supposed to be built around the idea that one very special day....i'll murder some innocent in the street and become an assassin. They are supposed to be world specific and only allowed when the DM judges it to be.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

The real reason is because the players arent supposed to know about PrCs. Characters werent supposed to be built around the idea that one very special day....i'll murder some innocent in the street and become an assassin. They are supposed to be world specific and only allowed when the DM judges it to be.

Hear, hear!

 

[Zappo]

When 3E first came out, WotC didn't expect prestige classes to become so popular. The idea was that most people would stick with core classes, and maybe every now and then the DM would have a PC be recruited in some secret society or something. Instead, the concept exploded. But the design idea was that people would normally not take PrCs.

As for the spellcaster PrC problem, that's a specialized design issue, not a problem of the core/prestige class concept itself.

 

[Gargoyle]

The fighter still works quite fine in 3.5. The improvements to all the other classes don't overshadow it at all. Don't forget that some of the racial changes indirectly help the fighter as well, particularly with regard to dwarves.