PrC XP penalty

[Shadow64]

Flame bait or no, I agree with Celebrim. The only problem with what he proposes is that the whole "class" system would have to be redone. Possible? Yes. By WotC? Probably not. I'm not saying they are not capable of it, just that they will not do it. Now, if a third party stepped up and put something together that is a whole different idea. I would probably even take a serious look at it and try using it in a game. How the players would react would, yet again, be a whole nother matter.

I think the system that has come closest to something without "classes" or "prestige classes" has been mutants and masterminds. While it may take a different approach to things (an approach that reminded one of my friends of Hero System) and while it certainly could be munchkined to high heaven, i still think it is pretty good. A system that used the M&M style of pointbuy and progression for a fantasy system would sell pretty well i think.

But, this is all just my opinion typed out without much forethought, so take it as you will.

 

[Merlion]

Most prestige classes are in many ways extensions of base classes...roles or specialites...so I dont see why there should be an XP penalty

 

[Ranger REG]

I like the prestige class rules as is.

I don't think it is munchkin, as it offers an alternative for players to sacrifice a level in their current core classes to take a level in the prestige class.

Because of that, it is so much better than the character kits of 2nd edition.

Also while it is a player's option, it is ultimately the DM's discretion to include them in the game. Which is why they're in the DMG. The prestige class rules are variant rules, and not part of the standard core rules. Unlike d20 Modern, you are not encourage to take a prestige class or two.

Now while prestige class is a far better alternative to character kits, I do agree that without proper guidline, certain prestige classes can be overbalancing in the game. I do believe that certain powerful prestige classes should have requirements that would allow PC access to said prestige class at a higher level to match the same power level with the core classes.

Not all prestige class should be taken as early as 6th or 7th level (using the most favorable path to meet the requirements), but the requirement should indicate the difficulty of entering into such powerful prestige classes.

Should prestige classes be campaign-specific? That's up to the DM. Some generic prestige classes can be used in any campaign at the DM's discretion, and may modify those generics (such as the Assassin) to their campaign (the Assassin would be the Dark Disciple of the Shadow Knives). Then again, some may view prestige class (it's more of a blanket term, unlike d20 Modern which has both prestige classes and the low-powered advanced classes) as reaching the height of one's career path set forth from the beginning. A 1st-level lancer may rise to become a professional cavalier at 6th level.

Nevertheless, prestige class should remain a DM's option, no matter what the players say.

 

[Bagpuss]

Now, it is virtually unheard of to hear of a character without a PrC. Single classed characters are the exception rather than the rule. Opinions, thoughts...

In your game maybe...

I've got 5 players

8th level cleric
9th level sorcerer
6th level Barbarian / 3rd level Rogue
7th level Ranger / 2nd level Fighter
3rd level Rogue / 2nd level Fighter / 3rd Level Shade Touched

So only 1 prestige class out of 5 players and two single classes characters. Now I admit the Barbarian/Rogue is considering Frenzied Barbarian next level, and the Ranger/Fighter is thinking of Order of the Bow Initiate (but won't be able to do that until at least 12th level). But multiple Prestige classes are really uncommon so I don't see the problem.

 

[Spatzimaus]

In a perfect world:

> PrCs would be as powerful as core classes, not stronger. So, you'd still have a motivation to stay with your original class.
> They would be intended to provide sets of abilities that shouldn't be available at level 1 (not necessarily for power reasons), things inappropriate for Feat chains.
> Each PrC would have drawbacks to compensate for the bonuses. Losing spellcasting progression, etc. is an obvious one. The important thing here is ONGOING drawbacks, not just hefty prerequisites.
> All players who wanted a PrC would work towards it over the course of their entire career, working with the DM to integrate the appropriate organizations into the world.

Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. Due to how their powers scale, it pays to take a PrC as early as possible, and take the entire class as quickly as possible. Part of the problem, IMO, is that almost every PrC is a 10-level class. At that size, it's expected that you can continue with your primary class' abilities. Even the toughest caster PrCs give you 5 out of 10 levels of spellcasting.

What if every PrC was a 5-level class with easier requirements, where it bestowed very little of your original class abilities but gave other things instead? For example, what if all caster PrCs had no spellcasting progression but gave a lot of Archmage-style benefits? Or a PrC with lots of item creation bonuses, or one for metamagic (Mystic!) or whatever; the point is, you'd be sacrificing the raw power of your core class to gain specialized abilities. And, each of these classes would be designed to mix-n-match; you wouldn't automatically want to take all 5 levels of each.

This'll never happen in the core D&D, though. It's too big. Now, d20 Modern does something like this, and that I like. But, it could really be done better here.

Oh well, it's a pointless rant.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't see 2nd edition kits and 3rd edition prestige classes as closely analagous.

The closest thing 3rd edition has to the notion of a 'kit' is the feat. The 'kit' by and large was a small variance in traits designed to overcome the fact that the 1st and 2nd edition skill system was kludged on, that 2nd edition had no concept of the 'advantage' (or feat), and multiclassing was more difficult. Granted, there were a small number of 'kits' that gave advantages with no particular disadvantage, but the effect of kits was pretty small and unobtrusive. But kits have pretty much been obseleted by the more flexible system of taking feats and skills appropriate to the particular variant of character you wish to play.

The PrC is most analagous to the 2nd edition concept of the Specialist Priest, and has all the same problems. Some are poorly designed. Some are far too powerful. Most obselete a core class. They are far too numerous for proper play testing. They are far too numerous for a DM or game designer to keep track of thier various abilities. They result in a large number of rules that are very specific to the class and not shared with other classes, which reduces the elegance of the overall design. The result in the creation of cookie cutter characters which are basically identical to every other character with the same class. So on and so forth.

At least 2nd edition had the excuse that they were trying to provide flavor for the cleric, as it would stand to reason that clerics should be as diverse as the deities they serve. To that extent, specialist priests were a rousing success. But 3rd edition has no such good excuse for PrC's. All the tools necessary to elimenate them are there. There is no satisfactory excuse for adding the PrC's to the design given the downside.

Finally, I again point out that the system was not designed such that you start out with a level in 'warrior', then take a few levels in 'lancer', then take a few levels in 'knight', and then take a few levels in 'Peer of the Realm'. The game was designed not for Warrior 1/Lancer 3/Knight 5/Peer of the Realm 2. If it was, I would expect no class to have more than 5 levels of advancement, and a core list of dozens if not hundreds of classes covering every field of interest - each with its own short list of bonus feats and skills. The game was designed so that a fighter 11 could by taking feats by either a cavelier or an archer depending on the choices that were made, and there is no particular reason why we need a Fighter 5/Cavalier 6 or a Fighter 5/Archer 6. Couldn't we do the same thing by simply providing mounted combat and archery feats? And if we examine the fighter 5/cavalier 6 or fighter 5/archer 6, the first thing we usually note is that they have about 9 'bonus feats' (usually disguised as class abilities) and the fighter has only 6. Given that the fighter was probably going to specialize in something, how is 'forcing' them to take more of something that they were already going to take a penalty? How is this balance?

PrC's feel so tacked on to the system. I'm a 1st edition player, and I love 1st edition 'feel', but I never want to go back to 1st edition rules - least of all the need to have a new class with its own rules for each profession (mariner, archer, scout, alchemist, merchant, blacksmith, etc.)

 

[Merlion]

It is a good idea tho...although I like prestige classes as they are to...but thats only cause I'm not personaly affected by the, do-the-best-thing thing myself. But I really like the idea.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's why I say it's a DM's option.

You can simply use the core classes to make whatever type of fighter or wizard you want.

But if you want to introduce prestige classes into the game, then you have to make prestige class appealing that they're willing to multiclass to it. You have to ask, "what is so good about a prestige class that I'm not getting from my core class?"

So, yeah, it is something that you're willing to tacked on to your character.

As for being analogous to character kit, I don't think they're not, but they do offer a kind of "customization" option to your character. The character kit is free, so anyone with a character kit tacked on have a better advantage over regular character without a kit.

While a prestige class is also tacked on, you do so by spending your character level (and XP) toward a level in that class, so it is not free.

 

[Celebrim]

Ranger REG: I don't think your logic holds up.

"But if you want to introduce prestige classes into the game, then you have to make prestige class appealing that they're willing to multiclass to it. You have to ask, "what is so good about a prestige class that I'm not getting from my core class?"

First of all, you have to ask why you want to introduce prestige classes into the game. What _IS_ so good about a prestige class that I'm not getting from a core class? That is the question you should ask before creating any class, not afterwards to justify the creation of the class.

You don't say "Gee. I want to introduce an archer class to the game. Fighters are already good at archery. In order for people to want to take it has to be better than fighters. What sort of things do I want archers to do better than fighters." You should say, "Gee, there are some archery things that no class can do. I want archers in my game. Should I create an archer class?" And the answer should probably be, "Fighters are already supposed to be good with weapons. Rather than creating an archer class, lets just extend the fighters custumability by adding more archery feats to thier bonus list."

Secondly, why do you have to make the class more appealling than a core class? Don't fighters occassionally take levels in rogue? Is this because rogues are more powerful than fighters? Or is it because a few levels in rogue lets them diversify into areas outside the sphere of 'combat with weapons'? Is combat with bows outside of the sphere of fighter specialization? Are they not allowed to take 'weapon specialization: longbow'?
Are they not allowed to take archery bonus feats?

The character kit is free, so anyone with a character kit tacked on have a better advantage over regular character without a kit."

That is arguable. The idea behind the kit was that a person with a kit would not be advantaged over someone with another kit or no kit at all. It didn't always work out that way - a consequence of there being so many kits designed with so many different philosophies - but that was the idea. Each kit was supposed to balance a very small advantage against a very small disadvantage. PrC's were notable in NOT being created with this idea in mind. They were designed to be unbalanced with core classes right from the beginning, so any one with a PrC was supposed to be by definition have an advantage over a regular character without a PrC.

While a prestige class is also tacked on, you do so by spending your character level (and XP) toward a level in that class, so it is not free.

Errr... come again? You are spending your character level (and XP) toward a level in some class right? That XP is going to be spent somewhere. It is not a burden to gain a level. (Oh, dear, I have to advance a level. Woe is me.) So the choice is between spending it on a level in this or a level in that, and if the PrC carries no significant disadvantage why not take it? (Gee, I that PrC forces me to do extra damage with my attacks, and forces me an extra feat each level which adds to my character concept. I don't know, should I take it?) I mean, the whole thing that triggered this rant of mine was that to top it all off, PrC's don't cost you any extra XP when you take them.

 

[Merlion]

Ranger REG: I don't think your logic holds up.






Errr... come again? You are spending your character level (and XP) toward a level in some class right? That XP is going to be spent somewhere. It is not a burden to gain a level. (Oh, dear, I have to advance a level. Woe is me.) So the choice is between spending it on a level in this or a level in that, and if the PrC carries no significant disadvantage why not take it? (Gee, I that PrC forces me to do extra damage with my attacks, and forces me an extra feat each level which adds to my character concept. I don't know, should I take it?) I mean, the whole thing that triggered this rant of mine was that to top it all off, PrC's don't cost you any extra XP when you take them.

Dont you think that was a tad overly...rude? If you dont like prestige classes, say so. if you dont agree with his reasoning, say so. Dont be unpleasant.
I get what your saying. Although to me the point..or at least the original point...of prestige classes is to represent archtypes and roles, especialy ones that can do things that one shouldnt be able to do at early levels and/or wouldnt really fit into the feat/skill/base class abilities system.