Prestige Classes - A Crutch?

[johnsemlak]

I was rather pleased to see that Green Ronin did something like this in one of their books already.

Which book and PrC was that?

 

[Psion]

Which book and PrC was that?

The Lifeweaver in Bow & Blade.

 

[Scion]

I'm asking this without rancor or sarcasm Psion (and saying so because such things don't often translate well in this medium) but what exactly is the downside of the Mystic Theurge?

I'm asking because your D&D-Fu is mighty, while mine is like, maybe brown belt in comparison

I know that this question wasnt for me but I thought I'd say a few words.

For some reason the search engine isnt working to find older threads for me, or I would post a link to a few of the topics that were on it instead of saying much here.

Effectively the mystic theurge is a fix to a problem that should be fixed in the system rather than using a prc, but even with all of the ways people have thought most fall short or go way too far. I've seen a few good ones, still waiting for the perfect one.

Giving up those 3 levels is a pretty decent hit. You do gain versitility, but not really as much as you should even with this prestige class. Staying as a straight cleric will generally net you more and better spells to some degree. There were a lot of people who did run downs of spell levels, spells per day, and other various things. The mystic theurge was only slightly ahead in some places and far behind in others. Overall it was shown through various methods that a straight caster was better in more ways than it was worse, and in ways that matter as well. (oh yes, you have to remember that you are also giving up all of the bonus things.. the things that depend on class level such as familiar, turning, certain domains, etc)

All in all I like the class and think that while bland, it was meant to be bland. It is a basis class, pretty much another basic character class that has requirements more than a prestige class. They just had to give it a name of a mechanic already in place.

As for prestige classes in general they are all over, and this is a good thing. Basically it allows any dm to pick and choose, grab ideas from, steal, modify, and slash whatever needs to be done to give it the proper flavor. So instead of it taking hours and possibly creating a version that is only close to what they want dm's have a pile of them already to choose from. It helps to keep balance and flavor while keeping everything interesting.

More ideas = good thing, especially since so many people have such varied tastes in what is 'good' and 'useful'.

 

[BryonD]

Well, I'm pretty strongly in the opposite camp.

Swept Away, Gigli, Glitter, and numerous other abominations of motion picture do not mean that movies are a bad thing.

And simply being better at one thing at the cost of another is not automatically bad. Being better at archer than a straight fighter can be done in a fun, balanced manner. Unfortunately, the typical formula is that you get better at archery in exchange for giving up somthing you really don't care about. Which isn't just bad design, it is truly horrid design.

The core books do provide a great variety of character concepts that can be built. And I'll agree 100% that if a character concept can be fully realized with core classes, then there is no point in a PClass. And there are vast options available there. But PClasses open that up to a literally infinite degree.

Taken to an absurd degree, this same logic should apply to feats. God knows that there are TONS of horribly designed feats out there. So that is crime #1. And if you want your fighter to be good at spotting and listening, you should put ranks in spot and listen. Altertness is just a way to wheedle around the fact that fighters don't get many skill points and these skills are cross class for them. So that is crime #2. Obviously I don't buy this arguement, but to me the only difference between this position and the one being made in this thread is a matter of degree.

Consider the MT. I strongly dislike the MT. So I am not defending it. But I would offer that an Wiz5/Cler5/MT10 is LESS overpowered than a Wiz10/Cler10 is underpowered. Saying "Hey, you got to give up power for versitility," is nice and all. But when the amount of power surrendered is so great that the class becomes unviable, then you have a problem. And if your reply is that it is a roleplaying choice and powergaming just has to suffer, then you really should not be in this debate. Either comparable power levels for characters is important or it is not.

Anyway, if every Joe Schmoe who liked movies could whip one out and post it on the net is 15 minutes, I would propose that there would be a hell of a lot more Gigli's out there. (Yes, there would be a few diamonds, this is beside the point.) And the arguement that movies suck would be just as rational as the anti-PClass position here.

The babies are small, few and for between. And the bathtub may be as large as an olympic pool. But the saying still holds.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Now that I thin on it, I have allowed a Prestige Class in my game. My friend Mike took Purple Dragon Knight from the Forgotten realsm book, as it allowed him to be better at Leading an armed force.

I think this is good.

Compare it to any of the Archer presitge classes which allow you to be a "better archer than the fighter class normally allows"

I think that's not good.

Line the Prestige Classes up along those lines and I will probably allow the the first group.

But I mean come on..."Archmage"? the concept here seems to be "Better Wizard" unless I've missed something.

 

[BryonD]

But I mean come on..."Archmage"? the concept here seems to be "Better Wizard" unless I've missed something.

OK, if you want to start a thread saying that the archmage is a crutch, then fine.

I really don't want to play debate the finer details of class X. But I would offer that wizard is a fine, realtively simple class that gets the job done. Archmage is not a "better" wizard, so much as ONE case for an alternate, more complex wizard path.

Assuming that the prereqs are negligible (which I don't admit to, but I won't claim they are any great burden) then just look at the abilities. Each one costs a spell slot, now IF a given power is slightly more powerful than a spell with a 24 hour duration of the same level as you give up, then I would argue that the class is not overpowered. In effect you gain a slightly more poowerful spell with the string attached that you are mandated to cast it every day. Now, we can debate the details of each ability, but that would move into implementation. You challenged the very "concept." I disagree with that claim.

 

[BluSpecs]

Byron, you lost me in your 2nd to last post.

So your comparing "I think PRC's are uneeded clutter" to " I think Feats sidestep the rules and therefore suck"

It almost seems as if your saying that the game is not the same without PRC's and it's absurd not to use them?

I know I couldn't see playing 3.x with out feats.

Are you saying the same thing about PRC's?

 

[Steverooo]

I believe PrCs, and the current multiclass concept, are the worst things that have happened to AD&D!

Yup, in "the old days", you could be a F/MU/T (that's Fighter/Magic User/Thief, or Fighter/Wizard/Rogue, today), but you started at level one, in each, and advanced in each class one level at a time...

Now, you have to go F1, F1/W1, F1/W1/R1, F2/W1/R1, etc. Further, you have the brand-spanking-new ability to STOP taking levels in a class (even with the 20% XP Penalty - IF it's enforced!). So now, PCs can "cherry-pick" a level (or more) of Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk, even despite the alignment restrictions, and be an Ex-Barbarian with nearly all the powers, abilities, and skills of their classes... Of course, if the 20% XP Penalty were strictly enforced, then there would be less of this.

The fact that "Prestige Classes are more powerful than regular classes", of course, makes an even bigger joke out of "most characters have only a single class". This is a laugh, in most games that I have seen.

The simple fact that a F/Ex-Barbarian/Paldin/Ranger has an 8+CON Fortitude save, and more HP, and the same BAB as a fourth level F/Pal/Rgr, plus some other great abilities, is pretty bad. Add some Rogue levels to the mix, and/or some Monk levels, and the PC can have Improved Uncanny Dodge before a straight Rogue can, AND some added AC Bonus when unarmored... It becomes pretty silly to play just one class.

And don't even get me started on the LN Druid/Monk!

 

[BryonD]

Byron, you lost me in your 2nd to last post.

So your comparing "I think PRC's are uneeded clutter" to " I think Feats sidestep the rules and therefore suck"

Neither of those quotes belong to me.

I am comparing that the two primary complaints being lodged against PClasses as being applicable to feats.

It almost seems as if your saying that the game is not the same without PRC's and it's absurd not to use them?

Sorry, I can't really reply because I can't possible see how you got that from a full reading of my post.

I know I couldn't see playing 3.x with out feats.

Are you saying the same thing about PRC's?

No. I am saying they are not a crutch.

 

[BluSpecs]

Neither of the quote are from anyone in-particular just my paraphraseing of what I thought you were getting at.

So PRC's are not a crutch, got it. What do you mean by the Feat example?

You wouldn't happen to be a professor or a professional talker type would you?

I ask be cause you seem to have the ability to write a detailed answer to something but completely baffle the reader!

No offense intended, your writting style is very... wordy not bad just lengthy.