PrC’s, one at a time or for dipping?

[wayne62682]

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.

And how else would you propose one play a "true" fighter-mage (one that can fight decently in melee AND cast spells) if you cannot wear armor without incurring ASF? The reason why folks "dip" and "min-max" as you put it is to pull off the concept they want to play. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Mistwell]

And how else would you propose one play a "true" fighter-mage (one that can fight decently in melee AND cast spells) if you cannot wear armor without incurring ASF? The reason why folks "dip" and "min-max" as you put it is to pull off the concept they want to play. I see nothing wrong with it.

There are many ways to achieve the goal you mentioned.

1) Just wear the armor an incur the arcane spell failure. The concept exists in the game with the intention people will use it. That's why the percentage chance is listed there.

2) Choose a base class that allows you to do what you are looking for, like warmage or duskblade.

3) Save your copper pieces and buy armor that allows you to do what you are looking for, such as Thrisledown Twilight Mithral Breast Plate.

4) Join an organization that will teach you how to do it, which includes a prestige class to incorporate some rules for applying what your character has learned in role playing. Of course, that usually implies some level of dedication to that prestige class organization, if it's one of the prestige classes that is closely linked to an organization in your game.

5) Work with the DM to create a prestige class, core class, equipment, or feat tailored to your character concept, with the requisite role playing requirements for your particular game.

 

[PallidPatience]

1) Just wear the armor an incur the arcane spell failure. The concept exists in the game with the intention people will use it. That's why the percentage chance is listed there.

2) Choose a base class that allows you to do what you are looking for, like warmage or duskblade.

3) Save your copper pieces and buy armor that allows you to do what you are looking for, such as Thrisledown Twilight Mithral Breast Plate.

4) Join an organization that will teach you how to do it, which includes a prestige class to incorporate some rules for applying what your character has learned in role playing. Of course, that usually implies some level of dedication to that prestige class organization, if it's one of the prestige classes that is closely linked to an organization in your game.

5) Work with the DM to create a prestige class, core class, equipment, or feat tailored to your character concept, with the requisite role playing requirements for your particular game.

But don't use the tools that are given to you to do the same thing. That's min-maxing and bad.

1) ASF is way too strict to just "suck it up and deal with it", which is basically what you're saying. "Play a fighter/mage who MIGHT get a spell off every once in a while".

2) Those classes are very focussed, and are almost concepts in their own right. Their spell lists are very limiting, and they don't allow the versatility to achieve every fighter/mage type out there.

3) Have you been paying attention to the boards lately? "Save your money and buy what you want" doesn't exactly get to happen in many games. That sort of thing is as frowned upon as dipping in PrCs, apparently. Besides, most people don't want to have to rely on a single piece of equipment to pull off a general concept. That sort of thing really belongs more to specialist fighters than to such a concept.

4) Once again, the organization might have nothing to do with the concept of the character. But I'm guessing that that doesn't matter. It's another "deal with it" situation, right?

5) Most people don't want to have to build their own class to suit their needs. At the same time, how is this any different than just picking levels of other classes to build the character you want?

As far as I'm concerned, honestly, I have a character-driven gaming philosophy. "Min-maxing," "power-gaming," and "dipping" are all foreign concepts. The important thing is building the concept you want no matter how many levels of what classes you need to take to do it.

 

[rgard]

There are many ways to achieve the goal you mentioned.

<SNIP>

4) Join an organization that will teach you how to do it, which includes a prestige class to incorporate some rules for applying what your character has learned in role playing. Of course, that usually implies some level of dedication to that prestige class organization, if it's one of the prestige classes that is closely linked to an organization in your game.

<SNIP>

The Urban Savant is like point 4. Cool PrC.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Mistwell]

But don't use the tools that are given to you to do the same thing. That's min-maxing and bad.

Every single thing I mentioned is using the tools that are given to you to do the same thing. I am not sure where you got anything different from my post, or that I think min/maxing is bad. In fact, I am a person most common rules-forum posters think is a big min/maxer.

1) ASF is way too strict to just "suck it up and deal with it", which is basically what you're saying. "Play a fighter/mage who MIGHT get a spell off every once in a while".

It's not. The concept is in the game for that very purpose. You just want to have your cake and eat it to. It's not all that strict. The lighter the armor, generally the lower the chance of failure. And there are things that can reduce it as your level/wealth increases. What's so difficult about that?

2) Those classes are very focussed, and are almost concepts in their own right. Their spell lists are very limiting, and they don't allow the versatility to achieve every fighter/mage type out there.

Yes, indeed, they do not let you do anything conceivable. Much like all classes in the game. You know, for like, balance and stuff!

3) Have you been paying attention to the boards lately? "Save your money and buy what you want" doesn't exactly get to happen in many games. That sort of thing is as frowned upon as dipping in PrCs, apparently.

I have been paying attention to the board lately, and I don't see how paying attention to the board is relevant to this discussion. If you can buy those items in your game, it's not an issue. If you cannot, then you cannot. Can you? I'm betting you can, in which case you are what, complaining on other people's theoretical behalf?

Besides, most people don't want to have to rely on a single piece of equipment to pull off a general concept. That sort of thing really belongs more to specialist fighters than to such a concept.

No it doesn't. Depending on a single item is no more or less burdensome than depending on a single level of a particular prestige class. Nor is it more or less specialized than taking a single level of a particular prestige class either.

4) Once again, the organization might have nothing to do with the concept of the character. But I'm guessing that that doesn't matter. It's another "deal with it" situation, right?

No, not deal with it. If it doesn't meet with your concept, the prestige class has an adaptation section to work with that issue. Why do you keep implying motivations to me where none exist? Why keep putting words in my mouth?

5) Most people don't want to have to build their own class to suit their needs.

NOW I am saying deal with it. This is plain and simple whining. You want a character concept that is unique to you, but you want to put no effort into working out that concept with the DM and the rules? Yeah, tough. Deal with it. Welcome to role playing games, where you can do anything you want, but you have to put some effort into doing that. "I'm too lazy" is not a good excuse.

At the same time, how is this any different than just picking levels of other classes to build the character you want?

Usually, cherry picking a level here and there results in a character that is far more powerful than a class would be if built from bottom up. It's an issue of balance. If it doesn't result in an overpowered concept, then I think it is fine. But, to determine that it takes discussion with your DM, and at that point why NOT put together your own?

As far as I'm concerned, honestly, I have a character-driven gaming philosophy. "Min-maxing," "power-gaming," and "dipping" are all foreign concepts. The important thing is building the concept you want no matter how many levels of what classes you need to take to do it.

Except if it requires any effort to talk to your DM and put something unique together, in which case it's too much effort for you to concern yourself with?

 

[Seeten]

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: ?!?!?

I much prefer the opposite approach, the one where the DM says, "Ok, everyone make up a fighter. A base class fighter. I dont allow PrC's and I don't allow dipping, also, I disallow feats, because some of them are powerful. We'll be running adventures of my choice, and you'll like it." and then proceeds to the Choo-Choo.

All-Aboard!

Oh wait, I dont prefer that approach. My bad.

How about a game where the players and DM collaborate on EVERYONE having fun, not just either/or. A game fun for everyone, wouldnt that be neat?

If the PC's evolve thru RP into pirates, get a ship, and want to ply the seas, you are being pretty disingenuous to suddenly send them 1000 miles inland to the desert, arent you.

I'm sorry, you strike me as the Me-and-only-me DM I see so often these days, who thinks he does all the work, and the players are only there to attend to his magnificence, and calls himself God, etc. Perhaps I am attributing more to your post than existed, but since you went ahead and attributed to Wayne being a me-first gamer, I feel its fair game.

 

[Seeten]

5) Most people don't want to have to build their own class to suit their needs.

NOW I am saying deal with it. This is plain and simple whining. You want a character concept that is unique to you, but you want to put no effort into working out that concept with the DM and the rules? Yeah, tough. Deal with it. Welcome to role playing games, where you can do anything you want, but you have to put some effort into doing that. "I'm too lazy" is not a good excuse.

Lazy? I am not in a single campaign where the DM will allow me to "build my own PrC" but I'd be THRILLED to be in one, so I didnt have to cobble together the prereq's for 3 PrC's and 2 base classes.

As an example, I am currently playing a rogue, who is going for Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 3/Dread Pirate 1/Scarlet Corsair 10/Dread Pirate 4 because thats how the mechanics work to make the swashbuckling pirate captain who is intimidating and scary and neato.

I'd LOVE to make my own PrC, or base class, for that matter, that is perfectly suited to me, sadly, even the suggestion I do that is met with derision, and the assumption I plan to wildly powergame. I am better off dipping, that is stigmatized, but not NEARLY as much as creating my own overpowered class, which the DM and all PC's will whine about, no matter how over, or under powered it is.

 

[Mistwell]

Lazy? I am not in a single campaign where the DM will allow me to "build my own PrC" but I'd be THRILLED to be in one, so I didnt have to cobble together the prereq's for 3 PrC's and 2 base classes.

As an example, I am currently playing a rogue, who is going for Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 3/Dread Pirate 1/Scarlet Corsair 10/Dread Pirate 4 because thats how the mechanics work to make the swashbuckling pirate captain who is intimidating and scary and neato.

I'd LOVE to make my own PrC, or base class, for that matter, that is perfectly suited to me, sadly, even the suggestion I do that is met with derision, and the assumption I plan to wildly powergame. I am better off dipping, that is stigmatized, but not NEARLY as much as creating my own overpowered class, which the DM and all PC's will whine about, no matter how over, or under powered it is.

It's the rules as written that you SHOULD be putting together your own unique PRC with your DM. I cited the rule above: "The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.". If your DM won't work with you on it, well, that puts you in a difficult position where indeed the course of action you have taken is probably the best you can do (baring changing gaming groups).

 

[3catcircus]

But don't use the tools that are given to you to do the same thing. That's min-maxing and bad.

1) ASF is way too strict to just "suck it up and deal with it", which is basically what you're saying. "Play a fighter/mage who MIGHT get a spell off every once in a while".

Bull (I said Bull$#$% but I figure a Mod will warn me about trying to circumvent Eric's Grandmother's potty-mouth filter... Sorry.) The fighter-wizard combo is intended to be a light-fighter that uses magic to assist himself (or obversely is a wizard that can defend himself), not a walking tank that can also fire off massive damage spells.

 

[3catcircus]

I much prefer the opposite approach, the one where the DM says, "Ok, everyone make up a fighter. A base class fighter. I dont allow PrC's and I don't allow dipping, also, I disallow feats, because some of them are powerful. We'll be running adventures of my choice, and you'll like it." and then proceeds to the Choo-Choo.

All-Aboard!

Oh wait, I dont prefer that approach. My bad.

How about a game where the players and DM collaborate on EVERYONE having fun, not just either/or. A game fun for everyone, wouldnt that be neat?

If the PC's evolve thru RP into pirates, get a ship, and want to ply the seas, you are being pretty disingenuous to suddenly send them 1000 miles inland to the desert, arent you.

I'm sorry, you strike me as the Me-and-only-me DM I see so often these days, who thinks he does all the work, and the players are only there to attend to his magnificence, and calls himself God, etc. Perhaps I am attributing more to your post than existed, but since you went ahead and attributed to Wayne being a me-first gamer, I feel its fair game.

I fully agree that the players and DM should collaborate - before the campaign begins. I look at the running of the game as being quarterbacked by the DM, with the players as the rest of the team. Or, as a military unit - there can only be one CO, but many squad leaders.

Once the campaign has been determined (what sources, what genre, what tone, what house-rules, etc.) then I consider that to be the baseline for the campaign. If a new book comes out, players can certainly ask the rest of the group to consider including that, but shouldn't feel entitled to just use it because they bought the book.

I certainly don't approach it as a "I do all the work, bask in my glory" situation. However, if I spend a ton of my time preparing for a campaign theme and genre that we all agreed to, then shouldn't I expect the players to follow through vice running around like a gadfly, flitting to each new idea (my Egyptian/Dread Pirate example)? Especially that example, where the idea of a Dread Pirate is completely different from an Egyptian campaign...