PrC’s, one at a time or for dipping?

[hong]

If a Prestige Class is so Prestigeous shouldn't you want to stick with it rather than taking the goodies and heading off to another 'Prestige' Class?

Maybe there should be another name for them. Advanced Class?

Under the d20 Modern philosophy, "prestige classes", aka advanced classes, really are not much more than just fancy collections of abilities. You can mix and match them as you like. You have to ask why bother with the distinction between base and advanced classes in this case, but that's what they do.

 

[robberbaron]

I'm really glad I am not including PrCs in my campaign. I seem to have saved myself a world of hurt (and none of my players has complained. Well, only one and then only once).

 

[hong]

I don't have a problem with PrCs in general. Heck, I wouldn't even have a problem with someone picking up multiple PrCs, if the process of gaining those PrCs actually led to some fun gaming sessions and more hooks for future sessions. The problem of an excessively twinked build isn't the same as having lots of PrCs, although they're obviously correlated to some degree.

 

[moritheil]

It is entirely a good thing in a game that's based on cooperation rather than competition.

I disagree both with your assertion that there is no competition in the conceptual framework of DnD, and with your assertion that dumbing down someone's build is a good thing for the team. I suppose we'll leave it at that.

Why not?

It is injust.

Nobody said anything about lack of tension in terms of overcoming campaign challenges. If anything, having to work harder at powergaming your build leads to MORE tension, since you'll have to rely more on good rolls and/or good in-game tactics and cooperation to defeat your enemies.

Nobody also said anything about an inferiority complex. The desire for an equitable state of play is a basic part of human nature, just as much as the desire to maximise utility on an independent basis. Hint: the work to create a powerful build is not a good in its own right, and if the effort in a direction orthogonal to one's natural gaming taste exceeds the return, then that work is of no value.

Aha! But if you want things to truly be equitable, you should allow a player who spent time and effort to benefit from his expenditure of time and effort. Wouldn't throwing that out and rewarding people who did not spend that time and effort be unfair?

Why would that someone else mind having their powergaming gene challenged with extra obstacles?

I will respond with your own words: "The desire for an equitable state of play is a basic part of human nature."

Exactly. And hence any powergamer worth playing with is not going to worry about having their powergaming gene challenged.

They can rise to a friendly challenge, though, and it can be great fun. In fact, it is usually part of the fun in the group I regularly game with. Why would you want to remove that critical part of the game?

I want to revisit this quote, because it's interesting:

If I was interested in "competition", I'd play Counterstrike.

You say that dismissively. But Counterstrike is a wildly popular game. And if the point of DnD is to have fun, what's wrong with allowing someone a half-dozen PrCs? Why should it matter if it feels more like Counterstrike, or Myst, or any other game?

If I might quote someone else from the boards, Kafkonia recently posted that "making a backstory that explains how [a character] got all those classes is the fun part of building a character." While I don't agree that it's the only fun part, I want to point out that it can be a source of considerable enjoyment.

 

[3catcircus]

I disagree both with your assertion that there is no competition in the conceptual framework of DnD, and with your assertion that dumbing down someone's build is a good thing for the team. I suppose we'll leave it at that.

Two different ideas - should be addressed in two different responses.

It is injust.

Who said life was fair?

Aha! But if you want things to truly be equitable, you should allow a player who spent time and effort to benefit from his expenditure of time and effort. Wouldn't throwing that out and rewarding people who did not spend that time and effort be unfair?

Why should I allow someone who spent time and effort to purposely flout the spirit of the rules to benefit from it?

(snip)

You say that dismissively. But Counterstrike is a wildly popular game. And if the point of DnD is to have fun, what's wrong with allowing someone a half-dozen PrCs? Why should it matter if it feels more like Counterstrike, or Myst, or any other game?

So, do you have more fun at Counterstrike or Myst if you use a cheat code or if you advance fair-n-square? It sounds like you have an entitlement mentality.

If I might quote someone else from the boards, Kafkonia recently posted that "making a backstory that explains how [a character] got all those classes is the fun part of building a character." While I don't agree that it's the only fun part, I want to point out that it can be a source of considerable enjoyment.

I would argue that making a believable backstory is fun. Coming up with a half-a**ed backstory to shoe-horn in to a min-max "build" is a crock. I can't even believe we use the term "build." Advancement in D&D or any other traditional PnP RPG *isn't* about coming up with a "build" to try and "beat" the game. It is about a shared experience. The abilities a given class or PrC has shouldn't be looked at as building blocks to use piecemeal. They should be looked at as pieces of a greater whole called a "class." The abilities aren't what make up your character, the class that uses those abilities is.

You could even look at it like a real-world job. For example, the ability to use MS Word, or draw AutoCAD, or do partial differential equations are *tools*, but they do me little good by themselves unless I can use them all together (along with other tools) to *be* an engineer. I certainly can't just decide that those abilities qualify me to be a doctor or lawyer.

 

[hong]

I disagree both with your assertion that there is no competition in the conceptual framework of DnD, and with your assertion that dumbing down someone's build is a good thing for the team. I suppose we'll leave it at that.

... because, you know, achieving a desired objective in the presence of additional constraints constitutes "dumbing down". For my next trick, I will show that when Inigo Montoya fought the man in black using his left hand, he was actually doing it to make things easy.

It is injust.

"unjust"

Aha! But if you want things to truly be equitable, you should allow a player who spent time and effort to benefit from his expenditure of time and effort.

He can spend his time and effort in other ways that are more conducive to creating a non-pressurised atmosphere. Or playing Counterstrike.

Wouldn't throwing that out and rewarding people who did not spend that time and effort be unfair?

No. Rewarding people for stressing on one particular aspect of the game, which leads to competitive stress and misses the whole point of playing a non-competitive game with no clearly-defined victory conditions or end goals in the first place, is unfair.

I will respond with your own words: "The desire for an equitable state of play is a basic part of human nature."

Tch.

They can rise to a friendly challenge, though, and it can be great fun.

Ah. This must be some new meaning of "fun" that I wasn't previously aware of.

In fact, it is usually part of the fun in the group I regularly game with.

Tell me why I care about the group you regularly game with.

And if the point of DnD is to have fun, what's wrong with allowing someone a half-dozen PrCs?

If it cuts down on everyone else's fun while they're doing it, because they feel obliged to keep up, or resentful of that someone hogging the spotlight to an unhealthy degree.

If I might quote someone else from the boards, Kafkonia recently posted that "making a backstory that explains how [a character] got all those classes is the fun part of building a character." While I don't agree that it's the only fun part, I want to point out that it can be a source of considerable enjoyment.

Fun FOR YOU. Not necessarily fun, or even of interest, for the other people around the table.

Of course, the beauty of this hermetically sealed, self-sufficient approach is that, really, the other people around the table are entirely superfluous to the purpose. Since "fun" is now defined to be achievable without actually going to the trouble of playing, we might as well dispense with all that tedious business of getting together and rolling dice; just post it on a blog and assume that there was some gaming going on at some point. It'll be the ultimate geek fantasy: pretending to pretend to be elves! I'll make millions.

 

[Elethiomel]

I would argue that making a believable backstory is fun. Coming up with a half-a**ed backstory to shoe-horn in to a min-max "build" is a crock. I can't even believe we use the term "build." Advancement in D&D or any other traditional PnP RPG *isn't* about coming up with a "build" to try and "beat" the game. It is about a shared experience. The abilities a given class or PrC has shouldn't be looked at as building blocks to use piecemeal. They should be looked at as pieces of a greater whole called a "class." The abilities aren't what make up your character, the class that uses those abilities is.

You could even look at it like a real-world job. For example, the ability to use MS Word, or draw AutoCAD, or do partial differential equations are *tools*, but they do me little good by themselves unless I can use them all together (along with other tools) to *be* an engineer. I certainly can't just decide that those abilities qualify me to be a doctor or lawyer.

I do agree that Advancement in D&D or any other traditional PnP RPG isn't about coming up with a "build" to try and "beat" the game. At least it isn't for very many groups and very many players.

I do not agree that a "class" should be like a real-world job. In fact, I think the whole "class" thing is silly, and I'd much prefer a game where abilities are bought on a per-ability basis so that you can make a character to match your backstory, not make a backstory to match your character. Because if each class is like a real-world job, that's what you'll have to do.

The problem with many non-class non-level based PnP RPG systems is that they are even more open to exploitation and powergaming than DnD is. The beauty of the multiclassing available in DnD is that you can use abilities from classes as "building blocks" to "build" a character that fits the concept you have in mind, without going through the work required to make an entirely new class.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I would like to join this discussion, so here it goes, sorry if these were directed at someone else. I have answered them instead I hope you are not displeased.

Who said life was fair?

its not, but shouldn't games be fair?

Why should I allow someone who spent time and effort to purposely flout the spirit of the rules to benefit from it?

Pure butter is gross. Bread and butter... now thats more like it.

So, do you have more fun at Counterstrike or Myst if you use a cheat code or if you advance fair-n-square? It sounds like you have an entitlement mentality.

Mixing classes is cheating? I dident know that... could you show me were this is stated in the books. man... i feel so bad now. You seem to resemble those who call someone a cheater when they kill you fair and square. (in counter strike that is)

I would argue that making a believable backstory is fun. Coming up with a half-a**ed backstory to shoe-horn in to a min-max "build" is a crock. I can't even believe we use the term "build." Advancement in D&D or any other traditional PnP RPG *isn't* about coming up with a "build" to try and "beat" the game. It is about a shared experience. The abilities a given class or PrC has shouldn't be looked at as building blocks to use piecemeal. They should be looked at as pieces of a greater whole called a "class." The abilities aren't what make up your character, the class that uses those abilities is.

Actually those greater pieces is called a character. Classes build a character, along with back story, and role playing. By removing flavor from the classes themselves, one can create flavor without any distraction. It can inspire creativity. I think the issue you really have is that the game used to be built around a single classes progressing. Then, a class was the character. This is not the case in 3.5. When asked what are you, the answer would be a fighter, or a mage ect... When a fighter or mage now can be building blocks to something more.

Classes can become ingredients like flower and eggs to make something marvelous. I think what you might be trying to describe is a painting. If that paintings color pallet is sparatic and chaotic, the color will ruin the artwork. However, if you never mix the colors within the limited pallet, the mood will not be conveyed and the point to having a limited color pallet is almost meaningless. It will look incredibly blocky and post modern if the colors (classes) are not aloud to mix on the canvas. The sun isent just orange and the sea is not just blue/green. Classes are colors and the more colors used the better. The question is, are you going outside your pallet? multiclassing shouldn't be an excuse to go outside the color pallet, BUT... its the players and dm, through active playing define the pallet. A class can be used in many different ways to convey different colors.

I think you might not be looking at the colors conveyed and perhaps using prejudgment to see if the colors are harmonious or not. It is also not the title of the class defines its colors but the class features. Now i know the flavor is very important. but to those who are creative, its meaningless because it will changed anyway to fit the character at hand. class flavor shouldn't limit the overall creativity of making a character.

You could even look at it like a real-world job. For example, the ability to use MS Word, or draw AutoCAD, or do partial differential equations are *tools*, but they do me little good by themselves unless I can use them all together (along with other tools) to *be* an engineer. I certainly can't just decide that those abilities qualify me to be a doctor or lawyer.

are you equating choice of what abilities a character gets to the skill sets surgeons use to save lives? thats an odd way of putting it considering they are nothing alike and its probably a fallacious statement. In this case its just a character thats at risk not some ones life. be it in the ER or under a sky scraper.

However i think i know what mixture of classes and prc make a good balanced character. I don't know about you, but when my heart is failing, i want the best surgeon I can get to work on my heart, not the one that nearly graduated and did the bear minimum. Its the one that strove for greatness that gets the big bucks. Thats the one i want to try to save my life.

* I made alot of edits *