No Prestige classes allowed

[Numion]

I played in one campaign from 1st to 13th level, that was core only with no prestige classes. It was a really good campaign, even with a noob DM. If a player can make a good character concept without just looking at the bells and whistles, the core classes can serve pretty well.

I played a cleric, and those don't really need PrCs even if they were available, so what do I know?

 

[Spatula]

The only thing that would be better, is to have balanced Kits back. Since that is not an option in this current edition,

nor in the previous edition...

Disallowing prestige classes is a little like disallowing multiclassing. I agree there's no particular *need* for them, but then there's no need for any base class other than fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric.

The important thing is to make it clear that PrCs are under the DM's purview. If a player wants to play a PrC that's broken, explain your concerns to him and work together to tone down or eliminate the overpowered aspects. If the PrC just doesn't work in your campaign, find out what it is he likes about the class and see if you can't incorporate that into a modified version of the PrC (or a new PrC) that will fit.

 

[Aaron L]

Weve allowed PrCs since 3E came out, but we have had campaigns were no one took any.

I think they are a great way to further customize your character, and a good final step in a characers evolution.

We limit PrCs on the basis of what would fit in the setting. I have a list of ones I allow without discussion, and would consider any a players asks about. Ive even made several, taking elements from published ones and using them to fashion new ones customized for my home setting.

I have yet to encounter these problems caused by PrCs that some people bring up. They are a tool, and a good one at that.


Id play in a game tht didnt allow them of course, providing that it was a good game. They arent necessary for a good game. However, they are a very useful tool and Ive never found a good reason for discarding a useful tool.

I also think the new trend toward substition levels for customizing classes based on race and organization is a great tool, too.

 

[Odhanan]

In D&D 3.x, I doubt I would play in such a game if that restriction were put out there up front, because it smacks of a GM who cares far too much about what I'm doing with my character for me to be comfortable. I often don't use Prestige Classes for my characters, though, because of the specific requirements.

I agree with this. That all depends on the reasons behind the GM's decision. If it's about control, a fear of the players choices and builds, then the GM doesn't trust me or my fellow players. I have no reason to stay at this game table.

If however the GM has a specific reason in mind that would serve the game in the end, I wouldn't mind.

 

[smootrk]

nor in the previous edition...

I agree, even back then the Kits were not very balanced, but the idea was OK.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I have. It was fun.

To butcher Orwell:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Prestige Classing is Restriction

Not that I always feel that way about PRCs just a lot of the time.

 

[Cedric]

I'm pretty happy with the way I use PrCs in my games...

1. 95% of the PrCs are tied to an organization (whether it says so in the book or not) and there is some roleplaying heavy stuff that has to take place to join one.

2. Entry requirements and powers of the PrC are flexible insofar as getting the right "flavor" is concerned. Not to make the class beefier or simpler to get into.

3. Players are limited to one 10 level PrC and one PrC that allows up to 5 levels. So at most someone could have 2 PrCs.

With those strictures in place, I think it works great for me.

 

[Particle_Man]

I wouldn't outright ban prcs but I would take some on a case by case basis.

But Frenzied Berserker is right out!

 

[Nyaricus]

I would personally not enjoy a game where PrCs were not allowed, though I would likely consent to it (so love as mroe base classes were allowed to cover concepts.

OTOH, I disallow many PrCs because I want them to fit in with a more special niche like the DMG applies, although this sentiment fits in mainly with my homebrew, and not necessarily with my FR games (where, with some boundaries, everything pretty much goes).

cheers,
--N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm one of those guys who thinks more options is generally a better idea.

However, I'm in the minority in my current game group (together for many years) when it comes to RPGs.

Not only have most PrCls been written out, so have most of the non-Core base classes. And before 3.XEd, Kits weren't allowed either. Of all the PCs I've run in this group, only my current PC (a 3.0Ed Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/Spellsword) has a prestige class. I mean that- so far, its the only PC with a PrCl out of ALL of the PCs ANYONE in the group has played.

Why keep playing in plain vanilla games?

Because the group in which I play is fun. While I consider the campaign strictures a bit of a flaw, and my PCs may not have the intrinsic fun potential of something more esoteric from some of the campaigns I read about online, I can still have fun because the group is an absolute gas.