Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
PrCs: Anathema, or just lack of interest? (Pick two!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7800969" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>It looks like we...almost agree. It depends on what you consider "weird" requirements. Going back to my silver pyromancer example above: this is a PrC specifically for arcane (and only arcane, not divine and not warlock) casters who are vetted by, and then inducted into, a religious institution that teaches them special applications of their arcane casting. Given the explicit vetting process, I don't consider "you have to be trained in Religion" to be a weird requirement <em>in this context</em>. From both personal experience and knowing several others who have initiated into lay-faithful organizations, I would in fact think it weird to <em>not</em> have such a requirement for this specific example. Likewise, a prestige class that deepened the options available for wild shape might require proficiency in Nature--you need that baseline.</p><p></p><p>However, I am absolutely in agreement that naughty word things like requiring Channel Divinity <em>and</em> Bardic Inspiration or Superiority Dice <em>and</em> Smite Evil (etc.) would be completely inappropriate. Every prestige class should be viable for most characters with, <em>at most</em>, picking up a trained skill at the start, or taking a feat at level 4 in order to qualify (Skilled, specifically). You should never need careful build planning, because that is bad design and we have the entire crumbling edifice of 3rd edition to demonstrate it.</p><p></p><p>The reason I say "most" characters is I do think some PrCs warrant the ability to cast spells. That does, technically, cut off a portion of classes...but not a particularly big portion, depending on the details. (Heck, a five-level PrC that requires 3rd level spells would still fit into an arcane trickster or eldritch knight, to say nothing of Paladins and Rangers.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>All of this sounds perfectly cromulent to me. A silver pyromancer, by being someone who <em>started off</em> with arcane spellcasting and then got some religious training atop it, would make sense as an expert (leaning into master) class: by the time you finish it, you very much <em>are</em> an expert in the field of fighting evil outsiders and undead, and potentially have risen to a position of influence (dare I say <em>mastery</em>) within the non-cleric church hierarchy.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this a feat chain, or a class? As a class this sounds alright, though I'd want some design passes (it feels a little weak, but definitely on-theme.) I am completely opposed to making any kind of "feat chain" that sucks up all your feat opportunities. That's an incredibly punitive cost, and would almost certainly never be worth it--we should be encouraging flavorful choices, not locking them behind a cost almost no one would willingly pay.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Making something that just sucks up all your ASIs seems an excessively punitive cost, given that "you might lose 1-2 ASIs" is seen as an appropriate balance point for getting to multiclass.</p><p></p><p>See above. The primary result of this would be that no one would take them unless they're okay with being dramatically weaker than everyone else, and that's Pretty Bad. Unless...I guess you could have the 5-step-feat-chain grant stat bonuses to the chain's core stat(s). But then you're looking at them really being "half-feats," and a chain full of half-feats is probably going to be extremely lackluster. This is the problem I kept running into while looking at homebrew silver pyro stuff. On the one hand, anything that sticks to the power curve <em>and</em> exclusively uses feats either ends up bland, fails to capture the core concept, or both. Anything that breaks from the power curve in order to exclusively stick to feats <em>and</em> retain flavor/core concept...well, it breaks from the power curve, being either weak enough that it feels like a punishment for doing something flavorful, or powerful enough that you'd be foolish not to pursue it even if it doesn't fit the character.</p><p></p><p>That's a big part of why I started thinking: is this the place for "whatever PrCs should have been"? (Because apparently the term 'prestige class' is so poisoned by its 3.5e version that it's become anathema, to invoke the name is to summon its awfulness.) The space of things that:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">several different classes (and perhaps <em>all</em> classes) should have access to</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">are too strong to be squeezed into a single feat</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">would force players to choose between effectiveness and flavor if it cost multiple feats</li> </ul><p>That space seems to have fertile ground, to me. Subclasses can't cover it, because subclasses are too specific. To make up a (likely faulty) example, consider something that anyone who can Extra Attack can learn to do. It would require subclasses for Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, and Ranger--and it would fall down with the Valor Bard, because that's a <em>subclass</em> feature. Or, instead of writing five different subclasses, you could write one (ahem) "expert class" that covers the relevant stuff. Plenty of things <em>shouldn't</em> try to squeeze into this space. As a player or designer, one should usually first ask whether the other kinds of customization (feats, subclasses, a full class, a list of spells, etc.) are able to fill in the gaps.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 7800969, member: 6790260"] It looks like we...almost agree. It depends on what you consider "weird" requirements. Going back to my silver pyromancer example above: this is a PrC specifically for arcane (and only arcane, not divine and not warlock) casters who are vetted by, and then inducted into, a religious institution that teaches them special applications of their arcane casting. Given the explicit vetting process, I don't consider "you have to be trained in Religion" to be a weird requirement [I]in this context[/I]. From both personal experience and knowing several others who have initiated into lay-faithful organizations, I would in fact think it weird to [I]not[/I] have such a requirement for this specific example. Likewise, a prestige class that deepened the options available for wild shape might require proficiency in Nature--you need that baseline. However, I am absolutely in agreement that naughty word things like requiring Channel Divinity [I]and[/I] Bardic Inspiration or Superiority Dice [I]and[/I] Smite Evil (etc.) would be completely inappropriate. Every prestige class should be viable for most characters with, [I]at most[/I], picking up a trained skill at the start, or taking a feat at level 4 in order to qualify (Skilled, specifically). You should never need careful build planning, because that is bad design and we have the entire crumbling edifice of 3rd edition to demonstrate it. The reason I say "most" characters is I do think some PrCs warrant the ability to cast spells. That does, technically, cut off a portion of classes...but not a particularly big portion, depending on the details. (Heck, a five-level PrC that requires 3rd level spells would still fit into an arcane trickster or eldritch knight, to say nothing of Paladins and Rangers.) All of this sounds perfectly cromulent to me. A silver pyromancer, by being someone who [I]started off[/I] with arcane spellcasting and then got some religious training atop it, would make sense as an expert (leaning into master) class: by the time you finish it, you very much [I]are[/I] an expert in the field of fighting evil outsiders and undead, and potentially have risen to a position of influence (dare I say [I]mastery[/I]) within the non-cleric church hierarchy. Is this a feat chain, or a class? As a class this sounds alright, though I'd want some design passes (it feels a little weak, but definitely on-theme.) I am completely opposed to making any kind of "feat chain" that sucks up all your feat opportunities. That's an incredibly punitive cost, and would almost certainly never be worth it--we should be encouraging flavorful choices, not locking them behind a cost almost no one would willingly pay. Making something that just sucks up all your ASIs seems an excessively punitive cost, given that "you might lose 1-2 ASIs" is seen as an appropriate balance point for getting to multiclass. See above. The primary result of this would be that no one would take them unless they're okay with being dramatically weaker than everyone else, and that's Pretty Bad. Unless...I guess you could have the 5-step-feat-chain grant stat bonuses to the chain's core stat(s). But then you're looking at them really being "half-feats," and a chain full of half-feats is probably going to be extremely lackluster. This is the problem I kept running into while looking at homebrew silver pyro stuff. On the one hand, anything that sticks to the power curve [I]and[/I] exclusively uses feats either ends up bland, fails to capture the core concept, or both. Anything that breaks from the power curve in order to exclusively stick to feats [I]and[/I] retain flavor/core concept...well, it breaks from the power curve, being either weak enough that it feels like a punishment for doing something flavorful, or powerful enough that you'd be foolish not to pursue it even if it doesn't fit the character. That's a big part of why I started thinking: is this the place for "whatever PrCs should have been"? (Because apparently the term 'prestige class' is so poisoned by its 3.5e version that it's become anathema, to invoke the name is to summon its awfulness.) The space of things that: [LIST] [*]several different classes (and perhaps [I]all[/I] classes) should have access to [*]are too strong to be squeezed into a single feat [*]would force players to choose between effectiveness and flavor if it cost multiple feats [/LIST] That space seems to have fertile ground, to me. Subclasses can't cover it, because subclasses are too specific. To make up a (likely faulty) example, consider something that anyone who can Extra Attack can learn to do. It would require subclasses for Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, and Ranger--and it would fall down with the Valor Bard, because that's a [I]subclass[/I] feature. Or, instead of writing five different subclasses, you could write one (ahem) "expert class" that covers the relevant stuff. Plenty of things [I]shouldn't[/I] try to squeeze into this space. As a player or designer, one should usually first ask whether the other kinds of customization (feats, subclasses, a full class, a list of spells, etc.) are able to fill in the gaps. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
PrCs: Anathema, or just lack of interest? (Pick two!)
Top