PrC’s, one at a time or for dipping?

[Mistwell]

I think a lot of debates over prestige classes come down to a single issue: do you think it's okay if a prestige class is better than the base class, or not?

For me, I think it is okay if a prestige class is more powerful than a base class. Others disagree. And usually, opinions about everything else concerning prestige classes seem to stem from that basic issue.

 

[RigaMortus2]

When 3E first came out, I saw (and played/DMed) that PrC were "special". The Rogue in the group I was DMing had to meet with the Shadowdancer's in order to get initiated, and there were a lot of role-play restrictions I imposed before you could get into a PrC.

Nowadays, I just seem them as an option to expand your character, to create the type of character you want, which the base classes don't cover. As long as the mechancial prereqs are made (specific BAB, feats, Skills, etc.) I am less concerned with the roleplay restrictions.

 

[wayne62682]

Depending on your group, it wouldn't slow down so much as annoy players. The initial idea of PrCs might have been to allow for specialized organizations, but they've evolved (for good or ill is not the subject of debate) into being akin to d20 Modern's "Advanced Classes" concept where you mix and match them for the abilities granted in order to better fulfill your character's "vision". There's nothing wrong with either method.

I see that most of the arguments against PrC-dipping (any dipping in general, in fact) comes from two schools of thought: One that PrCs are tied to organizations/should be special groups (Elite soldiers, SWAT teams, Special Forces and the like), and Two that a class is a profession instead of a package. I disagree with both of these viewpoints and I find nothing wrong with dipping into PrCs provided the requirements are met; requiring anything more than that is needless overhead in my opinion.

It's also my belief that PrCs should be better than a base class since you: A) have to meet requirements (usually involving sub-par feat choices), and B) Can usually take a PrC no earlier than fifth or sixth level, which is roughly one-quarter of a normal game's lifespan; If you're going to waste 1/4 of the game before being able to realize your "true potential" (i.e. your character vision/concept), you had better get something good in return for it.

 

[hong]

Depending on your group, it wouldn't slow down so much as annoy players. The initial idea of PrCs might have been to allow for specialized organizations, but they've evolved (for good or ill is not the subject of debate) into being akin to d20 Modern's "Advanced Classes" concept

They have?

 

[3catcircus]

As a DM, I'm of the opinion that not only do PrCs need to be limited in this fashion, so must core classes. Additionally, I think it is very smart for the DM to look at all of the sources he allows and start "white-listing" only those that fit the campaign, which prevents players from preparing for a PrC that is completely *not* in keeping with the campaign, only to be disappointed when told no. Better to be up-front about things...

As a player, I approach PrC's as something to take advantage of when offered, but not to be expected. Focus on the roleplaying, and you'll end up qualifying for a PrC that you might not have thought of.

 

[Mistwell]

Depending on your group, it wouldn't slow down so much as annoy players. The initial idea of PrCs might have been to allow for specialized organizations, but they've evolved (for good or ill is not the subject of debate) into being akin to d20 Modern's "Advanced Classes" concept where you mix and match them for the abilities granted in order to better fulfill your character's "vision". There's nothing wrong with either method.

I disagree. I do not think they have changed or evolved in the manner you describe. Maybe in your game. But in the publications, they are stressing the organizations MORE these days, not less. Heck, the organization write-ups for PRCs have been increasing, by a lot, with each new book it seems. We now even have maps for the buildings that many of these organizations represent even!

Where are you getting the impression that WOTC is evolving PRCs into something more akin to the Advanced Classes? Where have you seen any implication at all that they are intended for lower levels, that role playing concerns are being removed more than added, and that organizations are not as relevant as they once were?

 

[wayne62682]

Quite simply it's because I see less and less people try to pull this "You need to find a member of Organization X to take this Prestige Class" junk than I saw back when they first appeared on the scene. WotC themselves seem to be saying this is an un-needed step and that PrCs are there to add nice flavor to your character and not to saddle you with a required DM Fiat to take them. In fact the majority of the people who do think PrCs require an organization are the ones who are "anti-dipping", and even then they use the requirement to "stick it to" those players who would prefer to dip into some classes and look past the words written on their character sheet.

 

[3catcircus]

Quite simply it's because I see less and less people try to pull this "You need to find a member of Organization X to take this Prestige Class" junk than I saw back when they first appeared on the scene. WotC themselves seem to be saying this is an un-needed step and that PrCs are there to add nice flavor to your character and not to saddle you with a required DM Fiat to take them. In fact the majority of the people who do think PrCs require an organization are the ones who are "anti-dipping", and even then they use the requirement to "stick it to" those players who would prefer to dip into some classes and look past the words written on their character sheet.

Funny - I thought the DM had final say (Rule Zero and all that...)

I find your post exudes an attitude typical of the current generation of gamers (which are a subset of the current generation of western societies in general): "Me! Me! Me! Entitlement! Mine! Me not being allowed to do whatever I please is violating my civil rights!"

PrC's are *not* something you are entitled to, just because you want it. If your DM allows his players free reign with any and all PrCs, he is doing them a disservice.

 

[rgard]

Funny - I thought the DM had final say (Rule Zero and all that...)

I find your post exudes an attitude typical of the current generation of gamers (which are a subset of the current generation of western societies in general): "Me! Me! Me! Entitlement! Mine! Me not being allowed to do whatever I please is violating my civil rights!"

PrC's are *not* something you are entitled to, just because you want it. If your DM allows his players free reign with any and all PrCs, he is doing them a disservice.

Are you his DM? It's the only way your last two sentences would have any relevance to his post.

I don't see the "Me! Me! Me!" in wayne62682's post.

Hopefully I completely missed the intent of your post, mistaking it for a serious tone when it was actually a joke.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I have a very short list of the PRCs I allow in my game, so this isn't much of an issue when I DM. The other guys usually don't GM D&D long enough for it to become an issue, and I don't think it would with our group anyway.