Prestige Class woes

[cignus_pfaccari]

I don't have a lot of third party stuff, so can someone describe how Substitution Levels and class templates would work?

Substitution levels have been found in Planar Handbook and Races of Stone so far. If you meet certain criteria, you can get different benefits out of a specific level of a class than normal.

For example, instead of getting a bonus feat at 1st level, a Dwarven Fighter Substitution Level gives the character Axe Focus (effectively Weapon Focus for every axe). Goliath rogues can exchange Evasion for Mettle of the Mountains at 2nd level.

It's probably the single best thing to come out of Planar Handbook. It gives more options, and lets you customize your character a bit more, and will also give you a guideline on how to do others.

No idea about class templates, though. Sorry, tovarish.

Brad

 

[Saeviomagy]

You could rewrite the skill requirements and make them skill tests with a particular difficult DC instead. This could give rise to a quick roleplaying scene, where the character that wants to get into a certain prestige class has to pass a test on the skills required in that prestige class, and if he manages, he's in. Like instead of telling the player "Your wizard needs Knowledge (Arcana) with 8 ranks to get into prestige class X", you could say "Your wizard stands before the ruling council of the Order of X, getting tested on his Knowledge of arcane matters. Roll a Knowledge (Arcana) check with a DC of 25. If you make it, you're in. If not, come back at the next New Moon and try again."

See, to me most orders would require some more comprehensive testing than a single question (although certainly for some a single question - and therefore a single skill test - would be in order). I'd just require the character to have a certain total skill modifier.

Don't know how to apply something similar for Feats, though...I guess those are a bit harder to "check" than skills.

Most of the feats cover increments to testable stats (ie - skill focus is +3 to a skill...), or combat abilities. They're easy to test.

For dwarven (or whatever) defender, the test might be to run a certain distance in 3 days, and then withstand 50 (unarmed) blows from the current defenders. Only someone capable of an extended forced march (ie - someone with endurance or a naturally high fort save) would be able to make the distance. Only someone with plenty of hitpoints would stand under the beating.

Additionally - if you make it a mechanical test, you can reflect other qualities within the test.

As an example - the distance you need to run may vary. A dwarf would get a comparatively short distance, while a non-dwarf might be given a near-impossible run to make. A dwarf might suffer a beating from only the recruits, or those administering the blows might go easy, not being willing to injure the subject out of comradeship. An orc on the other hand could well be subject to blows from the toughest members that are reinforced with favoured enemy bonuses...

And of course if he makes it in, he's something genuinely special.

I think that if more Abilities could be taken as feats (and characters could take a few more feats), a lot of the need for PrCs goes away, leaving a lot more variety that can be handled in the base class.

In many ways, PrCs can be thought of as high-level feat chains.

Except PC's don't get enough feats for this to be possible, with the exception of fighters and possible even wizards.

Were every character to get something on the order of an extra feat every couple of levels, then yes, I could see turning many of the prestige classes into long feat chains.

 

[Klaus]

Well, there is always the test-based prerequisites from Unearthed Arcana...

 

[Li Shenron]

Good essay and interesting points

I have my own issues as well with PrCls, although I indeed use them for PCs and NPCs.

Psion said something in another thread, which I'm going to paraphrase, that struck me as particularly insightful though; good prestige classes are much more than simply mechanics, they are character concepts, and that's something that's worthwhile.

According to his review numbers Psion might have seen a thousand PrCls already... How can one not agree with this statement of his? I think the Shadowdancer is the perfect example about how to write a PrCl: it's a pretty simple idea ("shadows") followed by gathering different mechanics/abilities related to that or adapted to the idea, even if they usually belong to different character archetypes (spells, stealth, summoning...).

It may be a little silly, but I tend to have prejudices against "short" PrCls with 3-5 levels, because they don't usually give me the feeling to have been planned enough by the authors. For the same reason, I look with suspicion at PrCls that give bonus feats (always seems the trick to balance up a PrCl the design of which gave a weak result).

On the other hand, some PrCls don't really follow a clear concept but nevertheless are very good IMHO. Those are the PrCl that lack a progression but instead give one specific ability by choice every level: Archmage, Hierophant, Horizon Walker. In this case it doesn't really matter how many levels they have. They don't really have a concept (yep, "very powerful wizard with unique various abilities" cannot really qualify as a concept guys... ) but they are instead used exactly as an alternative game mechanics. I am in favor of these PrCl, as long as they are don't have balance problems.

The theory of prestige classes allows, I think, for two specific meta-game concepts to be realized:

• Belonging to an organization that grants special class-related benefits (i.e., the Harpers, Red Wizards of Thay, etc.); or,
• Narrowing in on a concept that is too specific to really be a core class

The problem is, the more I've thought about it, the more I think PrCs are suboptimal at both of those tasks, for the most part.

Except the last use of PrCls I have mentioned above, I think you summarize quite well what PrCls are for.

With the first metagame idea I agree with you: existing PrCls are not very well designed for this task. But the way I see it, these are the problems with PrCls and organization membership:

1) Gamers are stuck with the idea that to the only way to be member of an organization, in 3ed you MUST take the signature PrCl.

2) Writers design a PrCl thinking about which class (usually only one) is meant to qualify for it. Requisites usually cut off every other class, either for the other classes it's too expensive to qualify or the PrCl simply demand a class ability which belongs to only 1 core class.
This is actually against the idea originally explained by Monte Cook, that PrCls should be open to everyone (although not just as easy). Unless the whole PrCl is meant to revolve around a specific class feature, the only true reason for writers to restrict a PrCl is that they cannot playtest it with more than 1-2 characters, so it's best to restrict it as much as possible.

3) Requirements should follow the concept and not be used as a design trick to follow point 2) or to make the PC pay a cost for the next abilities, which sucks unbelievably hard... To me most of the PrCls around have requisites designed around these two points (plus the minimum level) and only a very generic adherence to the concept.

And the problem with narrowing in on a concept that is not served by the core classes is, that you want to play that concept from the moment you envison the character; you don't want to "graduate" finally into the concept after levels and levels of play. Granted, you can still roleplay the concept, but if the mechanics don't support you, then that's an unsatisfying experience.

I agree with you that changing details of a core class or using new feats is a much more elegant way to build a concept than make a PrCl.

I really think that if PrCl had better planned requirements, playing the concept since the start would be feasible. Instead you often need to stack feats-skills-spells you wouldn't otherwise bother, only to get into the PrCl ASAP.

However let's not get crazy for "character concepts" either. IMHO it is a vastly abused excuse to crave for cheesiness. D&D is a game about choices, and of course it would be the best if every choice, every option, every idea behind a character would be equally effective to play. If someone is developing a PC and making suboptimal choices for just a style reason, I would defitely like to help him not lose too much game-wise.
But when you say "if the mechanics don't support you, it's an unsatisfying experience" sounds like we are more focused on a mechanical concept than a character concept. We are just too much used to thinking that character = set of scores and abilities. An example: I have just argued with someone about a Ninja character, the guy said D&D sucks because no one is able to make a Ninja class, and I told him that there is indeed a Ninja class D&D, and it's even in the PHB! Actually, there are at least 3 Ninja classes if you want them to be, depending on your character's priority, but I admit the Monk fits better because of the special athletic features. He argued that a Monk doesn't work because it has no sneak attack (he actually says it doesn't work also because it doesn't have full BAB).
Obviously this is a very specific example, in many other cases the core classes don't really allow what one is looking for (undead servant for a necromancer e.g.), but with a little fantasy on the DM's part you can always achieve this sort of things without PrCls...

 

[Psion]

It may be a little silly, but I tend to have prejudices against "short" PrCls with 3-5 levels

I dig 'em. Because they don't take over the concept. Sometimes taking over the character concept is just what you want. Sometimes you just need a hint of flavor.

I am using the three level classes from Book of the Planes (and some vaguely defined ones of my own) that define planar factions. The thing is, some of these factions will give you benefits, but they are often tangential to what the character does for a living, so it's not appropriate in these cases to require a character to sink in 10 levels towards such a concept.

 

[Desdichado]

But when you say "if the mechanics don't support you, it's an unsatisfying experience" sounds like we are more focused on a mechanical concept than a character concept. We are just too much used to thinking that character = set of scores and abilities. [...] Obviously this is a very specific example, in many other cases the core classes don't really allow what one is looking for (undead servant for a necromancer e.g.), but with a little fantasy on the DM's part you can always achieve this sort of things without PrCls...

Well, yeah. What I meant by "the mechanics don't support you" is that you can't actually play your concept well. A swasbuckler, for example, is a great concept, but with the core rules, the mechanics don't really support you until you get to the duelist prestige class. I certainly don't want the swashbuckler to be the most powerful character class out there, but I want it to be equally attractive and useful as any other class out there.

 

[Greg K]

However let's not get crazy for "character concepts" either. IMHO it is a vastly abused excuse to crave for cheesiness. D&D is a game about choices, and of course it would be the best if every choice, every option, every idea behind a character would be equally effective to play. If someone is developing a PC and making suboptimal choices for just a style reason, I would defitely like to help him not lose too much game-wise.
But when you say "if the mechanics don't support you, it's an unsatisfying experience" sounds like we are more focused on a mechanical concept than a character concept. We are just too much used to thinking that character = set of scores and abilities. An example: I have just argued with someone about a Ninja character, the guy said D&D sucks because no one is able to make a Ninja class, and I told him that there is indeed a Ninja class D&D, and it's even in the PHB! Actually, there are at least 3 Ninja classes if you want them to be, depending on your character's priority, but I admit the Monk fits better because of the special athletic features. He argued that a Monk doesn't work because it has no sneak attack (he actually says it doesn't work also because it doesn't have full BAB).

I am the DM/GM 99.9% of the time (which is fine, because I enjoy it). I think if a beginning character concept is reasonable, "balanced" and fits within the campaign setting (sorry, no ninjas in my current campaign , I will try to fit it in a concept via class variants rather than trying trying to shoehorn it into an existing class or rely on multiclassing with the standard phb classes. In fact, I like to have some some class variants based on cultures prepared ahead of time to capture the feel of the campaign.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

See, to me most orders would require some more comprehensive testing than a single question (although certainly for some a single question - and therefore a single skill test - would be in order). I'd just require the character to have a certain total skill modifier.


Most of the feats cover increments to testable stats (ie - skill focus is +3 to a skill...), or combat abilities. They're easy to test.

For dwarven (or whatever) defender, the test might be to run a certain distance in 3 days, and then withstand 50 (unarmed) blows from the current defenders. Only someone capable of an extended forced march (ie - someone with endurance or a naturally high fort save) would be able to make the distance. Only someone with plenty of hitpoints would stand under the beating.

Additionally - if you make it a mechanical test, you can reflect other qualities within the test.

As an example - the distance you need to run may vary. A dwarf would get a comparatively short distance, while a non-dwarf might be given a near-impossible run to make. A dwarf might suffer a beating from only the recruits, or those administering the blows might go easy, not being willing to injure the subject out of comradeship. An orc on the other hand could well be subject to blows from the toughest members that are reinforced with favoured enemy bonuses...

And of course if he makes it in, he's something genuinely special.

Personally, I prefer to summarize many skill checks of the same skill into one skill check, if they fall within the same DC. And it simply shortens the dice rolling.
Thanks for the suggestions for Feats. It sounds pretty good, and easy, too, to write up some requirements that actually prefer people with a certain set of feats but still enable entrance for those who had some very lucky dice and good roleplaying

 

[ruleslawyer]

The difference is that with templates you could have benefits from multiple templates at the same time, rather than go 1 level at a time. In addition, you are still a sorcerer or wizard, rather than an archmage or loremaster, and you do not have to have *all* the elements of the class, nor wait for several levels of prestige class to get the feature you want.

Hmm. I don't know that I like the idea of being able to cherry-pick PrC features; a LOT of PrCs are balanced low in order to compensate for one or two big-ticket abilities available at 9th or 10th level. It would be interesting to see how you'd work this; might you already have some examples in your games (hint hint)?

Plus, some spell-casting prestige classes require you give up spell progression at various levels.

I think you may have zeroed in on the issue there. Full-caster PrCs are basically "sorcerer-plus"; as such, a template isn't really necessary because, well, you don't give up anything to take PrC levels instead of sorcerer levels, so you might as well take the PrC levels. With reduced caster progression, the issue becomes substantially more complicated. A template may be a better solution.

I have yet to see any "special ability" for a prestige spellcasting class that was more valuable than advancing in the base spell progression - especially for sorcerers. The instant a sorcerer gives up a level of advancement, they fall 2 levels behind wizards of the same level with regard to highest spell level possible. No thanks.

Well, no one I know takes a reduced caster progression PrC, ever. All of the PrCs commonly recognized as "strong" are full caster progression anyway, so you get both the caster levels AND the special abilities! (Many folk on these boards seem to dislike that trend, BTW.)

 

[Quickbeam]

This has absolutely paralleled what I'm doing in my campaign -- I had a player who really wanted to do something with his character that wasn't allowed by the rules I had already established, but after some discussion, I agreed that it was perfectly within the scope of the vision of my campaign setting. Rather than introduce some wonky multiclass or prestige class option, I merely worked with him to work up the first half dozen or so levels of a new base class, which takes care of us for quite a while yet when we'll have to see how the class would continue to develop, assuming that character survives and continues his same direction.

This Ent almost always knows when you're talking about him and his brilliant character creations . FWIW Josh, my PC will live -- don't you doubt it! He may go insane, but he'll live .

For my part, I think some PrC concepts make perfect sense as a lofty goal we must work/grow/learn to achieve. Others make sense as organizational groups whose initiate members begin receiving benefits from their "special training" or "sacred lore." As Josh indicates, though, there are plenty of character concepts which should be available right out of the gate. I simply work to achieve the right fit by borrowing from various sources and bouncing my ideas off the group for balance purposes.