Not so prestigious classes

[jgbrowning]

prestige classes

i think there are really only fighter, mage, rogue, druid.
a REAL cleric would have mage limitations and cast healing/protective/retributive against their opposite alignment spells.
i mean, come on.. a full blown spell caster in heavy armor with shield with two domain special abilites and turn undead.... but i think the cleric is the most powerful/perhaps overpowered class.


clerics are prestige fighters in 3e
paladins are more fighter less healer than cleric (id ignore the LG requirement)
rangers are prestige fighters (any armor for two weap fighting)
barbarians are prestige fighters ('id ignore the C requirement, and the illiteracy part, and give +move in any armor)

bards are prestige rogues
monks are prestige rogues.. they fight equally, but get other abilities and fewer skills to balance that out (i'd ignore the lawful requirement)

sorcs are just mages with a twist


Here's my main reasoning behind this.
1. Any class that requires a social organization is definitely a prestige class. I dont want friggen monk style monasteries in my world but i have to have them to have a core class.... thats prestige, my man.... monk is also only non-eurocentric class.
2. Any class with supernatural abilities i would consider prestige, regular classes would be only extraordinary abilites etc...
3. Druid would be non-prestige since every single culture has a nature magic archetype.
4. Mage is non-prestige because the learned scholor type is in every culture with writing.
5. fighters are obvious as well as rogues.
6. bards were really just rogues who could sing or play an instrument, if you want to give them spells/supernatural abilities thats a prestige.


If there was a real cleric. not the uber warrior-priests that are in 3e i would place them as a prestige class of a druid. everything began with worshipping nature. If you dont like that idea, i'd replace the druid with my cleric and the druid would then become part of the "required society" and be sent to the prestige class.

well this is not the most rigid and unyielding classification system but its a good place to start. What you all think?

joe b.

 

[WizarDru]

That's part of the point: I dislike strongly the idea that most of the character classes available feature some kind of spell-casting ability. Besides, the non-magical woodsman, ala Robin Hood, Strider, etc. is a better archetype than the mystic warrior of the woods.

I agree the 3E ranger is pretty goofy, incorporating some odd elements from different sources....but isn't the Ranger as presented (TWF notwithstanding) primarily based off of Strider and the rangers? It's open to interpetation (and has been argued extensively), but there are hints of Strider using limited magic (if elven-inspired) as the source for the class' abilities.

I think Robin Hood is also not necessarily a perfect choice either, as it depends on which version of the Robin Hood legend you pull from. That a mythical character doesn't convert directly to an arbitrary game system's stats doesn't help.


All that said, I don't see anything wrong with your approach for the campaign setting, per se. From a conceptual standpoint, it's very interesting. From a rules mechanical standpoint, it might be more difficult for implementation. Other than making certain classes effectively prestige classes, how are they different from book standard? It sounds primarily like a way to give yourself easy plot hooks into the characters (which there's nothing wrong with, by the way), but not much else different. If so, I don't think there's much to be concerned with...unless you restrict some characters more than others, which your players might not appreciate.

 

[rounser]

You could make the NPC classes the only starting options, and take on PC classes as prestige classes with prerequisites. Adept maps well onto cleric and druid, expert onto wizard and bard etc. I think this even works for the sorceror, since I can envision a commoner's powers "awakening" one day.

Just so there isn't a sudden shock of abilities kicking in at level 1 in the PC class, you could also give the NPC class character an apprentice level in the class the level before they qualify for it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Waitaminute, waitaminute, waitaminute....

You have actually allowed players to take a class without having something in mind for their background training?!

Hm...interesting....

IMHO, every class is associated somewhat with some sort of an organization, or at least could be (and is likely the case, in any campaign with a good chunk of them, at least in the better-traveled parts).

So, you've got something like:

Barbarians have their tribes...
Bards have their tutors...
Clerics have their churches...
Druids have their circles...
Fighters have their training camps...
Monks have their monestaries...
Paladins have their churches/training camps...
Rangers have their tutors/training camps...
Rogues have their gangs/schools...
Sorcerers have their tutors/schools...
Wizards have their academies...

I mean, otherwise, where are they getting these powers from? "I trained myself as a mage whilst living the life of a farmer on this land..."?

Makes me wonder why every farmer isn't a mage if it's that easy....

I mean, not to disparage your attempt at all, but you can associate classes with organizations without having to require that they be taken above first level....I wasn't really aware that people *didn't* commonly do that....hm...

 

[rounser]

I mean, otherwise, where are they getting these powers from? "I trained myself as a mage whilst living the life of a farmer on this land..."?

No, I don't think a wizard would be able to qualify from a commoner (at least, not for a longer time). As an expert taking the right skills, yes. A sorceror could qualify from commoner, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting insight. Perhaps if you want to go this route, the only classes available are NPC ones, and then they can "level up!" into PC classes later....

Certainly solve the argument over which ones are trained or not.

 

[rounser]

Are the NPC classes balanced amongst themselves? If not, an expert/wizard may end up weaker than an adept/cleric simply due to the prerequisites required. Would probably require a fair bit of tinkering to perfect...

 

[Zhure]

Just wanted to point out that the OA Shaman as written is a semi-warrior, also, just like a Cleric. The Shaman gets IUS and bonus martial arts feats at every fourth level instead of the Cleric getting armor.

Greg

 

[Al]

Al --

In Joshua's defense...

He does think the Monk might be good as what he calls a pseudo-prestige-class. I personally agree that the Monk might be better as a pseodo-prestige-class than as a normal class because Monks come from monastic orders, which fits his definition of a pseudo-prestige-class.

As for sorcerers, I agree 100% with Joshua by his definition of pseudo-prestige-classes -- sorcerer do not come from any form of a society at all, they are innate spellcasters, often shunned from society, who develop their powers and skills alone, without any formal training.

As for Bards, I suppose it depends on how you view bards, and how they work in your campaign setting. If bards are part of some bardic order that teaches them the ability to weave magic through music, then you're right, they should be pseudo-prestige-classes. If, however, they are just wandering minstrels without formal training who have innate abilities (a la sorcerers), then they should not be.

This, does, of course assume two things- both of which are incorrect.

Firstly, it assumes that all prestige classes come from a formalised academy/school/organisation. This is clearly untrue, but this is what you use to justify the sorceror/bard not being a pseudo-prestige class. Granted, some prestige classes do have to belong to an order, but this is far from always the case. True necromancers 'are usually found singly', for one, although this is but one example. To take Tome and Blood, arcane tricksters, bladesingers, blood magi, candle casters, dragon disciples, fatespinners, mindbenders, pale masters, spellswords and true necromancers can all conceivably become prestige without relying on any external aid. Indeed, the majority of prestige classes can be achieved without formal aid. Thus, there is a clear fallacy to state that sorcerors cannot be pseudo-prestige as they achieve 'enlightenment' on their own.

Secondly, you assume that if a character comes from an organisation/have had a tutor, they MUST be pseudo-prestige. This is again false. Kamikaze Midget has illustrated this well, but I would reiterated this. Is a fighter whom has trained in a war academy a pseudo-prestige class? If he is not, then why is a wizard whom has trained at a magical academy?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I find it strange that cleric, wizard and druid are 'prestige' classes, but monk, sorceror and bard are 'normal' classes.

The argument that clerics are 'warrior-priests' and are therefore rare is a contradictory one. Monks, as 'warrior-monks' are far more rare, especially in a non-Oriental campaign. You proceed to say that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dislike strongly the idea that most of the character classes available feature some kind of spell-casting ability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

, but yet the monk has an incredible list of spell-like, supernatural and extraordinary abilities (even it's movement is at high levels).

It's not contradictory, because I specifically said that monks would make good pseudo-prestige classes, merely that I probably wouldn't do so because I want more than one "order" of monks in my setting. And the monk, while featuring a number of supernatural abilities, is no spell-caster.

Similarly, sorcerors should probably be rarely than wizards. I don't know how large this academy is, but suffice to say if it's of reasonable size than it should outnumber the sorcerors. That's still ignoring 'rogue' wizards, defectors and the like. Sorcerors should be incredibly rare (in most campaign worlds): if any arcane class should be prestige, the sorceror is far more likely.

Not being familiar with the intimate details of the campaign setting I'm working on, I have not idea how you think you can make that claim.

As for the bard, does it not follow from a specific concept, with spell-like ability? Bards were in medieval times, but (very) few (indeed) had spellcasting (a specious point perhaps, but if the ranger is shunted to prestige territory for having fourth-level spells, how much more the bard with his sixth-level spells?)

What's medieval times have to do with D&D? My setting (and D&D in general) has no pretention of being any kind of replica of historical medieval life. True, bard is probably one that makes sense to include here as well. Since I don't actually know anyone that ever plays a bard, I guess it slipped through the cracks as an unimportant detail at this point.

Sorry to criticise, but why some of the slightly 'weird' classes, and not all? You cannot go part of the way- it is illogical. The only sensible solution is to go the whole hog and make every class bar the fighter, rogue, barbarian, Bushfighter and OA shaman (don't have OA, so I'll take your word on it) 'prestige'. The current compromise doesn't make sense.

That really kind of depends on the setting is a class is weird or not. I mentioned specifically that the barbarian, monk and (with your reminder) the bard would fit this definition quite well as well, but I am leaving them as 'core' classes for campaign specific reasons. Or, more accurately, I haven't really fleshed this idea out yet and I don't know what I'll do with some of them. I want the barbarian to be a core class because with a little tweaking and the removal of the implicit roleplaying assumptions here, they can be more generic than they are actually presented in the PHB.

All that said, I don't see anything wrong with your approach for the campaign setting, per se. From a conceptual standpoint, it's very interesting. From a rules mechanical standpoint, it might be more difficult for implementation. Other than making certain classes effectively prestige classes, how are they different from book standard? It sounds primarily like a way to give yourself easy plot hooks into the characters (which there's nothing wrong with, by the way), but not much else different. If so, I don't think there's much to be concerned with...unless you restrict some characters more than others, which your players might not appreciate.

Might be some minor tweaks, but as you point out, it's mostly for built-in role-playing. Most of those classes come with 'pre-requisites' of some kind already. (alignment, must have certain score in certain ability in order to use certain abilities, etc.)

Firstly, it assumes that all prestige classes come from a formalised academy/school/organisation. This is clearly untrue, but this is what you use to justify the sorceror/bard not being a pseudo-prestige class. Granted, some prestige classes do have to belong to an order, but this is far from always the case. True necromancers 'are usually found singly', for one, although this is but one example. To take Tome and Blood, arcane tricksters, bladesingers, blood magi, candle casters, dragon disciples, fatespinners, mindbenders, pale masters, spellswords and true necromancers can all conceivably become prestige without relying on any external aid. Indeed, the majority of prestige classes can be achieved without formal aid. Thus, there is a clear fallacy to state that sorcerors cannot be pseudo-prestige as they achieve 'enlightenment' on their own.

I make absolutely no such assumption. I'm changing the background of certain classes to build in that assumption. That's called 'setting development.' Unlike you, apparently, I don't just play everything exactly the way that's written, I like to tinker with it and customize it for my campaign. My idea here is that many prestige classes represent membership in some kind of organization. Some of the core classes also work this way, while others are so generic that they can represent anything. For certain selected classes, that seem to work very well as 'member's only' classes, because they have restrictions of some kind, and offer certain special abilities that may or may not make sense in some campaign settings, I strengthened the idea, built up more fleshed out singular organizations (no more generic paladins, for example, you must belong to a certain order of paladins, because that's the only order of paladins, and nobody but members of that order have that training or those abilities) and maybe done some tweaks of chargen 'pre-reqs' so you can take that class at all. However, it's mostly roleplaying hooks built into certain character classes. Mechanically there's very little difference. From the assumptions implicit in the character, however, you have to change your mindset some.

Secondly, you assume that if a character comes from an organisation/have had a tutor, they MUST be pseudo-prestige. This is again false. Kamikaze Midget has illustrated this well, but I would reiterated this. Is a fighter whom has trained in a war academy a pseudo-prestige class? If he is not, then why is a wizard whom has trained at a magical academy?

I think he's demonstrated nothing. He hyperbolized my scenario and showed that it didn't make much sense, and then assumed that because his hyperbolized scenario didn't make sense that mine didn't either. Some classes, like the fighter, the rogue, etc. are so generic that it's silly to say that there are implicit organizations behind each class. Are you trying to tell me that there's only one organization in the entire campaign setting that knows how to fight, and everyone who learns to fight must go through them? How does that work? How do you get such varied fighters from such an organization that have such different skills and feats?