PrC’s, one at a time or for dipping?

[Nonlethal Force]

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.

I agree with your first sentence very much. PrCs should be something that DMs give access to. Every DM has the right to decide what to exclude and what to include. If they wave said right, it is their own fault.

I find I have difficulty with your second sentence. I allow my players free reign over all PrCs in CW, CD, CArc, CAdv, CM, Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, MotP (with 3.5 upgrades, of course), PHBII (Not that there are PrCs, but there are upgrades), XPH, and even BoED. I exclude all Races of _____ books, All setting specific books, CPsi, and CS. I realize that I am not giving them acces to every and all, but I am giving them free access to the lion's share, certainly. I am not doing them a disservice. Simply because we have worked long and hard to develop a gaming style among us of trust. That trust implies that I don't have to watch them with a sharp eye. I can allow them to be creative and know that they'll not break my game.

 

[hong]

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's CharOp board : D&D :: Dark Helmet : Darth Vader

WotC themselves seem to be saying this is an un-needed step

They are?

 

[3catcircus]

I agree with your first sentence very much. PrCs should be something that DMs give access to. Every DM has the right to decide what to exclude and what to include. If they wave said right, it is their own fault.

I find I have difficulty with your second sentence. I allow my players free reign over all PrCs in CW, CD, CArc, CAdv, CM, Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, MotP (with 3.5 upgrades, of course), PHBII (Not that there are PrCs, but there are upgrades), XPH, and even BoED. I exclude all Races of _____ books, All setting specific books, CPsi, and CS. I realize that I am not giving them acces to every and all, but I am giving them free access to the lion's share, certainly. I am not doing them a disservice. Simply because we have worked long and hard to develop a gaming style among us of trust. That trust implies that I don't have to watch them with a sharp eye. I can allow them to be creative and know that they'll not break my game.

Perhaps I didn't emphasis "any and all" enough. There are some PrCs that are clearly meant to be NPC-only (Cancer Mage, Frezied Berserker are two that come to mind.) There are PrCs that *should* be (and were) setting-specific (Purple Dragon Knight, Red Wizard of Thay, Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, Warmaster, Suel Arcanomach) that WotC has "genericized" in later publications.

Just because the, for example, Red Wizard of Thay became "Red Wizard" in DMG 3.5 doesn't mean it should be allowed in a Greyhawk, Eberron, or home-brew campaign unless it fits the campaign setting.

As to "disservice," my point was that if players have free reign, then *they* start to dictate how the DM should run the game. Just imagine:

Players: We are Dread Pirates, you need to give us pirate adventures.

DM: Just because you stole the Pharaoh's royal barge doesn't mean you are Dread Pirates - the vessel isn't sea-worthy and is not capable of operating on the high seas and since the majority of the campaign has been spent in the desert, there was no way for you guys to have had the opportunity to get the skill ranks in Profession (sailor). Besides we have been running an Egyptian-themed campaign with mummies and stuff...

Players: But... but... we met all the mechanical requirements. Some faceless poster on ENWorld said WotC isn't requiring us to meet non-mechanical prereqs to take a PrC because they don't want us to be saddled with DM fiat!

DM: ?!?!?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I see and hear your point, with or without emphasis. I just don't agree with it! My problem isn't that I don't understand what you are saying ...

Actually, it isn't that I disagree with it, either. I think you are correct. A PrC should be included only if it fits the world. A PrC should be included only if the DM has thought about the power level and is willing to allow it. I don't have any problems with that at all!

However, in my experience I personally prefer DMs who are facilitators of the story - not storytellers themselves. When I DM, I help create the world around the players. I don't make the players conform to my expectations. [Within limits, of course. For example, I find the geomancer to be a rediculous class, IMO. I don't think it is broken, but just a rediculous concept.]

As to "disservice," my point was that if players have free reign, then *they* start to dictate how the DM should run the game.

Yep. And that's how I prefer to DM. Strange, isn't it? I don't let the players dictate the game, but I want them to go in directions they are interested in going in. Then, I create a story around their hopes and dreams. The difference between that and dictating is that I want them to help determine where the story goes. They don't tell me ... I listen to their hopes and dreams and then find a creative way to make them (or part of them) come to life!

Players: We are Dread Pirates, you need to give us pirate adventures.

DM: Just because you stole the Pharaoh's royal barge doesn't mean you are Dread Pirates - the vessel isn't sea-worthy and is not capable of operating on the high seas and since the majority of the campaign has been spent in the desert, there was no way for you guys to have had the opportunity to get the skill ranks in Profession (sailor). Besides we have been running an Egyptian-themed campaign with mummies and stuff...

Players: But... but... we met all the mechanical requirements. Some faceless poster on ENWorld said WotC isn't requiring us to meet non-mechanical prereqs to take a PrC because they don't want us to be saddled with DM fiat!

DM: ?!?!?

Or, perhaps it is this:

Players: We are Dread Pirates, you need to give us pirate adventures.

DM: Just because you stole the Pharaoh's royal barge doesn't mean you are Dread Pirates - the vessel isn't sea-worthy and is not capable of operating on the high seas. However, if you want to be dread pirates you are certainly welcome to stay on the barge. I'll come up with some naval encounters and that'll give you some time and levels to begin to take more sailor oriented skill (assuming they survive). Perhaps you might be able to make money through trading or piracy on the nile until you can afford a more sea-worthy craft. But remember, since the majority of the campaign up until now has been spent in the desert ... there was no way for you guys to have had the opportunity to get the skill ranks in Profession (sailor), so you might want to hire a crew until you all can develop the ranks over a few levels. But we can work that out (again, assuming they survive). Just because we have been running an Egyptian-themed campaign with mummies and stuff, it makes sense that an occasional egyptian might need to know how to navigate waters - for things like trade and warfare. So we can certainly take the campaign in that direction if you would like.

Players: Great! We met all the mechanical requirements and now we'll get to put them into practice in a way that makes sense from a roleplay perspective as well!

DM: Isn't it cool when flavor and mechanics work to come together to make an interesting campaign that the players and DM help generate out of sharing the dreams and hopes for their characters?



Now, please don't see that as a snippy response to what you posted. I didn't put that up there to be mean or rude. I simply wanted to state how I could use about 90% of the same material (dread pirates, Pharoah's barge, skill checks, game mechanic requirements, roleplaying flavor) and come out with a scenario that allows the game to go in a direction the players want and is acceptable to me as the DM.

I should also say that drastic changes in the campaign (such as this) cannot be handled well at the beginning or even the middle of a playing session. To be fair to the DM, this conversation should take place at the end of the session where the players stole the Pharoah's barge. That gives the DM time to adjust the campaign's direction without having to come up with a totally new direction on the fly.

 

[3catcircus]

I see and hear your point, with or without emphasis. I just don't agree with it! My problem isn't that I don't understand what you are saying ...

Actually, it isn't that I disagree with it, either. I think you are correct. A PrC should be included only if it fits the world. A PrC should be included only if the DM has thought about the power level and is willing to allow it. I don't have any problems with that at all!

However, in my experience I personally prefer DMs who are facilitators of the story - not storytellers themselves. When I DM, I help create the world around the players. I don't make the players conform to my expectations. [Within limits, of course. For example, I find the geomancer to be a rediculous class, IMO. I don't think it is broken, but just a rediculous concept.]

Yep. And that's how I prefer to DM. Strange, isn't it? I don't let the players dictate the game, but I want them to go in directions they are interested in going in. Then, I create a story around their hopes and dreams. The difference between that and dictating is that I want them to help determine where the story goes. They don't tell me ... I listen to their hopes and dreams and then find a creative way to make them (or part of them) come to life!

Or, perhaps it is this:

Players: We are Dread Pirates, you need to give us pirate adventures.

DM: Just because you stole the Pharaoh's royal barge doesn't mean you are Dread Pirates - the vessel isn't sea-worthy and is not capable of operating on the high seas. However, if you want to be dread pirates you are certainly welcome to stay on the barge. I'll come up with some naval encounters and that'll give you some time and levels to begin to take more sailor oriented skill (assuming they survive). Perhaps you might be able to make money through trading or piracy on the nile until you can afford a more sea-worthy craft. But remember, since the majority of the campaign up until now has been spent in the desert ... there was no way for you guys to have had the opportunity to get the skill ranks in Profession (sailor), so you might want to hire a crew until you all can develop the ranks over a few levels. But we can work that out (again, assuming they survive). Just because we have been running an Egyptian-themed campaign with mummies and stuff, it makes sense that an occasional egyptian might need to know how to navigate waters - for things like trade and warfare. So we can certainly take the campaign in that direction if you would like.

Players: Great! We met all the mechanical requirements and now we'll get to put them into practice in a way that makes sense from a roleplay perspective as well!

DM: Isn't it cool when flavor and mechanics work to come together to make an interesting campaign that the players and DM help generate out of sharing the dreams and hopes for their characters?

Now, please don't see that as a snippy response to what you posted. I didn't put that up there to be mean or rude. I simply wanted to state how I could use about 90% of the same material (dread pirates, Pharoah's barge, skill checks, game mechanic requirements, roleplaying flavor) and come out with a scenario that allows the game to go in a direction the players want and is acceptable to me as the DM.

I should also say that drastic changes in the campaign (such as this) cannot be handled well at the beginning or even the middle of a playing session. To be fair to the DM, this conversation should take place at the end of the session where the players stole the Pharoah's barge. That gives the DM time to adjust the campaign's direction without having to come up with a totally new direction on the fly.

I understand your point, and I certainly take no offense at your response. My point is really that once the players and DM have set the "terms and conditions" of the campaign, everyone should abide by them.

Many times, a player wants a PrC because a "new hotness" book has just arrived in the game store. For example, we are in a Forgotten Realms campaign. When Complete Arcane came out, one of my players wanted to play a Suel Arcanamach. Sorry - that is Greyhawk only.

I wasn't referring to the players dictating the direction of the campaign; rather, that they could end up dictating the subset of the whole of the rules that are in use for that particular campaign, after the campaign has commenced. Of course, I'm also a time-strapped DM who likes to use pre-published material whenever possible.

I'm a big proponent of everyone sitting down at the table at the start of a campaign and brainstorming the "terms and conditions" of the campaign. What books to allow, what genre or tone, what house rules or variants in use, and any specific exceptions. Once those terms have been set, I think that the only things that should be negotiable are house rules or variants that just don't work. Source material selection should be static at that point unless something has undergone an errata (i.e. even though Spell Compendium had a bunch of spells in it, only those spells that originally appeared in an allowed previous source would be allowed in the current campaign) or is fully agreed-to by the entire group.

Once the genre and tone is set, as a DM, this gives me the framework to start picking appropriate pre-published material to use. For the example of an Egyptian-themed campaign, I'd definitely be using information from I3-I5 Desert of Desolation, Hamunaptra, or Necropolis and Sandstorm would be a source book, while Frostburn probably wouldn't be. For a militaristic campaign, Red Hand of Doom gets the nod, as would Heroes of Battle or Complete Warrior.

I also think a lot of this may be moot if the group executes a campaign as quickly as (or quicker than) WotC assumes. My current campaign is about a year old and they are only 12th level. Some campaigns have been going on for years of real-time and others last only a few weeks or months.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

So in your games, you are seeing it less. And you feel this hasty generalization is applicable to all games, as a sign of "evolution" of the game?

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.

Again, I disagree, and you didn't response to the points made as to why this is the case. WOTC is including more organizational information and requirements into the PRCs with the recent books, not less. What evidence are you seeing that WOTC themselves seem to be saying this is an un-needed step? This is by the way the fourth request to you in this thread to offer your evidence of this change in WOTC themselves (two from me, and two from Hong). What specific things make you think that WOTC has undergone this change in approach to PRCs as a whole?

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.

I do not see how that is in any way relevant to the point you are making, and it sounds intentionally antagonizing. Why don't we keep this to what we think the rules and, and what WOTC trends seem to be, rather than what you think of the motivations are of some of the folks in this thread?

 

[wayne62682]

I don't see any evidence of WotC pushing that you must be a member of an organization to take a PrC. You seem to be referring to the organization section which makes mention of such-and-such guild that fits a PrC referenced earlier, but this to me is a bone thrown to those who DO see PrCs as that way (Taking the work out of creating an organization from scratch) instead of saying "PrCs should have an attached organization).

I'll cite an example: Daggerspell Mage/Shaper from Complete Adventurer. The fluff mentions an organization, but it's nowhere listed as a requirement for entry to the class, thus has no bearing in-game except if the DM takes fluff and applies it to the mechanics. This, to me, says that they do not WANT this class to be part of an organization. However, later on the book has information on the Daggerspell Guild or whatever it's called. This to me is more of a "We know a lot of people feel PrCs should have an organization alongside it to help them integrate it into their games, so here's one you can just drop into your campaign" than a "We feel PrCs should have an organization attached to it, so we're giving you one that you can just drop into your campaign"

I would say more on the matter but it goes close to the "My opinion on how things *should* be" area.

 

[WarlockLord]

Speaking of broken PrCs, I just got Complete Divine on Friday. I looked at the Rainbow Servant. The mechanical pre-reqs can be met by any arcane caster, you lose no caster levels (look in the text. Text>table), and you get unlimited mind reading and the entire cleric spell list? What? Ok, it takes ten levels, but still...

 

[wildstarsreach]

Just as the title says. I am wondering about everyone elses thoughts on the matter. Would keeping players to one PrC until it is completed before they could take another slow down on the munchkinism? Or would it make play less fun? Most of the ‘How pimp is my munchkin’ threads I am seeing out there require a character to dip into PrC’s to get the desired effect before they move on. I am not stopping people from taking as many core classes as they want. Though if they play the ‘core’ classes presented in splat books then they could still find ways to power up their character. But it is harder.

I believe that the dip into PrC’s to gain power is that PrC’s are designed to specialize players. When a character is allowed to specialize into several things you can take what is special from one of the other and add them into the all powerful munch. Am I wrong?

Are PrC’s designed to be dipped into to create a marvelous blend, or were they designed to be a one stop shop till you finish 5 or 10 levels later? Do you allow for your players to dip or not? Do you think PrC’s are the Devils tool to corrupt players into destroying the game and the universe and should be just outright banned? I would appreciate everyones thoughts.

I believe that the intent was for when they take a PrC was to focus on that class until finished. There is nothing in the rules that address this. That is the crux of the problem, it is totally subject to DM decision. I think it is best left there. I've seen many gish builds that go that reccomend a level of spellsword just for the armor arcane spell failure reduction. This is min/maxing more than is necessary.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't see any evidence of WotC pushing that you must be a member of an organization to take a PrC. You seem to be referring to the organization section which makes mention of such-and-such guild that fits a PrC referenced earlier, but this to me is a bone thrown to those who DO see PrCs as that way (Taking the work out of creating an organization from scratch) instead of saying "PrCs should have an attached organization).

You made a claim that WOTC has changed their approach to prestige classes, and reduced the focus on organizations. We are asking you to back up that claim.

Generally speaking, if you are "throwing a bone" to someone, the implication is that you spend very little time on that thing, and do so in a perfunctory way. That is not what we are seeing however. In fact, we are seeing the opposite happening in the more recent books. More time is spent describing the organizations and fleshing them out, and in fact the prestige class details themselves seem more perfunctory than their associated organizations (when they are associated with an organization).

I'll cite an example: Daggerspell Mage/Shaper from Complete Adventurer. The fluff mentions an organization, but it's nowhere listed as a requirement for entry to the class, thus has no bearing in-game except if the DM takes fluff and applies it to the mechanics. This, to me, says that they do not WANT this class to be part of an organization. However, later on the book has information on the Daggerspell Guild or whatever it's called. This to me is more of a "We know a lot of people feel PrCs should have an organization alongside it to help them integrate it into their games, so here's one you can just drop into your campaign" than a "We feel PrCs should have an organization attached to it, so we're giving you one that you can just drop into your campaign"

Space is the primary resource every publisher has in their books. It's THE premium. It translates in a direct way into money spent, and money made.

More space in that book is devoted to the Daggerspell Guardians than to either of the particular prestige classes you are mentioning (pg. 31, part of pg. 32, pg. 36, pg 167, 168, 169). In addition, the beginning part and adaptation part for both classes state plainly that the classes are members of an organization, which you are free to change as you see fit. But the default is that they are members of that organization, an organization that is part of the core campaign setting of this game, and well detailed in this book.

I understand that you feel that leaving out the single line in the requirements section about the organization somehow represents a change, but I think the evidence of just how much detail and time and resources they spent to focus on the organization is much better evidence that the opposite happened - that WOTC thought the organization itself was a key part of the concept, and important to them. Indeed, it's more detail and focus on the organization that is offered to such organizations in the earlier books by WOTC, and in the DMG where the concept is first introduced.

I would say more on the matter but it goes close to the "My opinion on how things *should* be" area.

Fair enough. I suspect you disagree with this statement in the DMG:

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.