Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Glyfair" data-source="post: 3258880" data-attributes="member: 53">Yes and no.&nbsp; Campaign specific is too restrained.&nbsp; However, they were intended to be optional and certainly it was assumed that each DM would create their own prestige classes.The original article describing prestige classes by Monte Cook (who rumor has it had insight into the DMG's designers intent) lists 4 types of prestige classes that were intended.1)&nbsp; Give them what they want.&nbsp; The example here is a player who wants to specialize in the bow, even more than allowed in the core rules.&nbsp; So, Monte suggests creating &quot;The Order of the Bow.&quot;2)&nbsp; Define your organizations.&nbsp; This is the one I've heard many people claim to be &quot;the original intent of prestige classes.&quot;&nbsp; This article shows it was just one of several directions they intended.3)&nbsp; Describe your culture.&nbsp; Help give flavor to your cultures and races.&nbsp; Are your elves supposed to be the masters of magic?&nbsp; Create a prestige class for elves where they sacrifice other abillities for a focus on magic.&nbsp; Are the desert nomads supposed to be a hardy never die lot, create a class that allows them to get that reputation.4)&nbsp; Make lame options exciting.&nbsp; Does your player want to focus on the whip?&nbsp; He will be disappointed with the core rules.&nbsp; Create a prestige class that allows him to focus on a whip and not be the first one down every combat, or the one the villians laugh at.&nbsp; IMO, prestige classes were the 3E replacement for kits.&nbsp; Kits were generally complained about.&nbsp; In fact, largely for the same reasons prestige classes are complained about today, percieved poor balance in some.&nbsp; So, they took the concept (because they allowed the above directions to be addressed) and created requirements so PCs had to qualify for the &quot;kit.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Glyfair, post: 3258880, member: 53"] Yes and no. Campaign specific is too restrained. However, they were intended to be optional and certainly it was assumed that each DM would create their own prestige classes. The original article describing prestige classes by Monte Cook (who rumor has it had insight into the DMG's designers intent) lists 4 types of prestige classes that were intended. 1) Give them what they want. The example here is a player who wants to specialize in the bow, even more than allowed in the core rules. So, Monte suggests creating "The Order of the Bow." 2) Define your organizations. This is the one I've heard many people claim to be "the original intent of prestige classes." This article shows it was just one of several directions they intended. 3) Describe your culture. Help give flavor to your cultures and races. Are your elves supposed to be the masters of magic? Create a prestige class for elves where they sacrifice other abillities for a focus on magic. Are the desert nomads supposed to be a hardy never die lot, create a class that allows them to get that reputation. 4) Make lame options exciting. Does your player want to focus on the whip? He will be disappointed with the core rules. Create a prestige class that allows him to focus on a whip and not be the first one down every combat, or the one the villians laugh at. IMO, prestige classes were the 3E replacement for kits. Kits were generally complained about. In fact, largely for the same reasons prestige classes are complained about today, percieved poor balance in some. So, they took the concept (because they allowed the above directions to be addressed) and created requirements so PCs had to qualify for the "kit." [/QUOTE]

Verification