PrC XP penalty

XP Penalty for PrC's?

  • No Change (that one is for you powergamers :)).

    Votes: 51 70.8%
  • Treat 1st PrC as additional favored class and all others like any other class.

    Votes: 11 15.3%
  • Treat any one PrC as additional favored class and all others like any other class.

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • Treat all PrC's like classes.

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Other (please describe in a post).

    Votes: 4 5.6%

Gaiden

Explorer
Just wondering what you all think about multiple PrC's.

I have no idea if 3.5 will introduce any change to attaining PrC's. However, I have heard countless house rules limiting the number of PrC's a character can take and have seen many a time the abuse that can occur from taking multiple. It seems to me that often times, the idea of a PrC is undermined by taking too many of them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is wrong to take more than one PrC, it just seems that powergamers (like myself) can abuse it.

What do you all think?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I currently don't apply XP penalties for class choices, my players can multiclass freely. So far three characters have multiclassed.

An Elven Ranger switched to Fighter to be (7/2) once she realised how useless Rangers are at higher levels. Heading towards Order of the Bow.

A Barbarian switched to Rogue for a few levels (6/3) once he set off one too many traps. Heading towards Frenzied Berserker.

And a Rogue/Fighter/Shade Touched (3/2/3).

Admittedly under the offical rules only the Elf should have any penalties anyway, but I allow any character to count their first class as their prefered class if they wish.
 

The rules say there's no XP penalty for PrCs and I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, no XP penalty for multiple PrCs in my game.

-Tiberius
 

I don't think "No Change" means "this is for powergamers". Prestige classes are *supposed* to be balanced. Giving an XP penalty for taking them is wrong. You should fix the classes instead.

And you *can't* treat prestige classes as normal classes for XP penalties, since they're generally specifically designed to be taken by high level characters, and start out at first. You'd just make ALL prestige classes cause a 20% XP penalty.

Either a prestige class should be difficult to qualify for, or it should be fairly well balanced against standard classes. Either way, taking multiples isn't a problem. If it is a problem, don't look at the prestige rules in general, look at the specific classes giving you problems.

-The Souljourner
 

The rules say there's no XP penalty for PrCs and I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, no XP penalty for multiple PrCs in my game.

Divining the intention from the original game designers, I don't think they were thinking PrC's would play such a major role in character creation and advancement. Now, it is virtually unheard of to hear of a character without a PrC. Single classed characters are the exception rather than the rule. The original point of PrC's was to be exactly that - prestigious and special. They were supposed to be specialized. Now, they pretty much just increase the abilities of a class.

As I said above, I am not against PrC's - I just think they ought to be used for roleplaying reasons rather than powergaming reasons. I will also freely coceed that there is nothing stopping DMs/PCs from taking a more roleplaying approach to PrC's. Its just that as I said above, many DM's institute house rules to ensure that PrC's stay in line with roleplaying as opposed to powergaming.

It would seem to me more in line with the designers intent to introduce an XP penalty similar for drastic multiclassing for multiple PrC's.

Opinions, thoughts...
 

So, the rules as currently written are for powergamers? Bah.

Since almost all of the PrCs have goofy requirements for entrance, I don't get too many folks that pursue more than one. If they do, it's because the PrC is too "front-loaded" with too little benefit later on (like the ranger? -- minor troll).

Here's one I like better --

If a PC or NPC begins a PrC, he is blocked from advancing in any other PrC until the current PrC is completed for all 10 (or 5) levels. I have not play-tested it, but it seems to make more sense role-playing wise...

OfficeRonin
 

Giving an XP penalty for taking them is wrong.

I am not sure if you overlooked that as part of the pole, options included having one of the PrC's be considered an additional favored class.

Are you meaning to say that giving an XP for taking a PrC is wrong if it is applied to the first PrC? This is expressly why I offered the options above. Or are you saying that an XP for multiple PrC's is wrong?
 

So, the rules as currently written are for powergamers? Bah.

I did include a :).

If a PC or NPC begins a PrC, he is blocked from advancing in any other PrC until the current PrC is completed for all 10 (or 5) levels. I have not play-tested it, but it seems to make more sense role-playing wise...

This is actually an option I would hate to see introduced into 3.5. Here is an example of where I think multiple PrC's would be ok:

A Human Paladin/Sorcerer joins the Arcane Order (MotAO PrC) and as he is advancing dislikes a decision by the ruling council of the order. As he is a paladin, the more neutral tendencies of the council disagreed with him from the beginning, but the decision to (for example) deny aid to his LG church entrenched between two CE armies who are currently bombarding his church with undead and evil outsiders - because it would be politically unwise went beyond just a difference in opinion. The paladin approaches the leaders of the Order petitioning to change their opinion and they chastise him as a result. He leaves the Order. At the same time, he goes back to his church to help them in their struggle. He realizes that he can best affect this end by exorcising many of the spirits that continue to take control of the lesser preists of the faith. He then trains to become a Sacred Exorcist. ...

The above example I think makes excellent sense as to why a character would transition between PrC's. (It is in fact one of the histories of an NPC of mine:)). In renouncing the Order he consequently lost all of his Spell Pool access, but that is just a storyline quirk. I don't see why one would not expand into a different PrC, if the storyline reasons were there. (Actually, this takes place on FR and I have future plans of him meeting one of the Wizards of Waterdeep and being introduced to that "Order", to regain his spell pool access - via a different PrC - although that admittedly is a houserule.
 


RANT ON

Well, I'm going to flat out lay down the flame bait that 90% of all PrC's are broken, and even among the 10% that don't render core classes obselete they are still (by and large) more powerful than core classes. You may feel that that is the whole point.

I feel it was a bad decision in the first place to make PrC's more generally powerful than core classes UNLESS the game was designed right from the start that no one would take a core class beyond the first five levels or so. However, in my mind, a few broadly adaptable balanced and capable classes is a far more elegant solution than a 95 indepedent, specialized, classes which cannot be tested against each other, nor can any new game element be readily tested with or against all classes. Any PrC that could not readily be adapted to a core class lacks sufficient flavor or else too overlaps a core class. Any PrC that covers a broader range of character concepts than a core class, implies either that the PrC is a core class or the core class is poorly designed. Any PrC whose special abilities could all be turned into balanced feats, never should have been made into a class. Any PrC whose purpose seems to be to duplicate a core class but allow by comparison additional feats or feat equivalent abilities over a given number of levels in order to create characters with 'Anime style'/k3wl/comic book/superhuman abilities at a lower level than they would otherwise acquire them is simply tossing the game balance out of the window, not to mention by thier mere existance pushing a campaign towards that anime/comic book/super human/flashy style.

Simply accepting the existance of the concept 'prestige class', pretty much forces your campaign into that style. At best, you end up with a Monte Cook style 'thinking man's hack-n-slash'. At worst, you end up with { phrase deleted because it really is too vile for this board }.

Even the very phrase is to me offensive. Had the original concept been 'advanced classes', it would have been clear that the purpose of the classes was to simulate 'advanced training'. But it is clear that professions and advanced training was NOT principally what they had in mind, but juvenile player ego boosting and ego building power gaming. They had in mind right from the start creating those obnoxious gamers that say, 'See how cool _I_ am, _I_ have a half-dragon fighter/butt-kicker of doom with a +5 keen greatsword of dire slaying. See all the cool powers I have. _I_'ve got a +55 BAB.' And it shows in the design of the classes.

And as I've said, even the notion of 'advanced classes' is an inelegant old school solution that leads to more problems in the long run and just tries to cover up for some basic design flaws in the core classes. It is clear to me at that Ranger went only half-way to a solution, that the game needs some more extensibility in the early design of characters, that more feats were needed in the initial core book for the sake of diversity, and that classes like Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin weren't daring enough in thier revised designs. Too many of the core classes have flavor that is more specific than the flavor of many prestige classes. What 3.5 needs is more feat chains replacing prestige classes, more flexibility in the character design at first level, more guidance in creating variant classes, and Druid redone as Shaman, Barbarian redone as Fanatic, Ranger redone has Hunter, and Paladin redone as Champion. Core classes should be built around profession, not flavor. Prestige classes, if they are allowed to continue, should be variant classes built around more flavor and more campaign specific flavor.

In point of fact, ANY PrC introduced outside of a world book is clearly a bad design, and that includes ALL of the PrC's from splatbooks, class books, player's option books, and virtually any other place that they are customarily introduced. How can they be a tool for a DM to add flavor to the world (the reason presumably they are in the DMG), if they are primarily introduced as a PLAYER option? How can you possibly claim something as devoid of flavor as Duelist or Assassin is a PRESTIGE class? In the case of Duelist, aren't what you are really dealing with is a fighter trained for a certain kind of combat and shouldn't thier be feat chains to provide for that?

So to me, allowing free multiclassing into a prestige class just makes the whole concept that much more absurdist in the first place. Not only do you get more power, but you suffer no penalty for it. Not only do you min/max, but you can freely min/max the exacts levels that give you the most front end abilities for each given class. And lets face it, ALL classes are front ended to some extent just to insure that they have thier basic flavor as soon as you take the class.

Treat prestige classes just like other classes in every way. Better yet, do away with the concept and make increasing levels and increasing prestige one and the same.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top