Prestige Classes - A Crutch?

[ciaran00]

There are many ways, IMHO, which are better. A Ranger who wants to set deadfalls and snares shouldn't be forced to take Rogue levels, nor to join a specially-made "Trapper" PrC.

Well, if the DM can't somehow work it out with the player (ie: the player wants too much), then yes he should be forced to multiclass (we're not playing with draconian 2e multiclassing rules anymore, what's the problem?).

But before the player is forced to do it at all, adjudicate, adjudicate, adjudicate. That's what you're there for.

ciaran

 

[BSF]

No, you're totally correct. PrCs are the "video game" aspect of 3e... no real personal development, just official quantifications of benefits traditionally garnered only from roleplaying (now a part of "rollplaying").

Also, most and all PrC's are a class that's slightly handicapped (heh, some PrCs don't bother with this) with some spell-like-ability equivalent. Note the absolute similarity to Rifts C.C.'s and R.C.C.'s ... no real balance, but lots of arbitrary creativity as far as number-crunching goes.

ciaran

No real personal development? Wow, your experience is completely different from my experience or the experience of any of my players.

OK, sure. PrC's are now official quantifications of benefits garnered from roleplaying. So?

Are you saying that I should just lump more nifty abilities on top of a character for roleplay without any concern for how much more powerful it might make that one character over the others? Or should I just give the other players nifty abilities too? I can do that. Heck, I have in many other games over the last 23 years. But, I like the fact that I can put together a PrC and then dangle it out there in front of the character and say "You want these neat abilities? Roleplay it. Find a way to get them. It's just going to cost you in this manner. If it's really the direction the character would go, let's do it."

I have no problem with having it officially quantified in my game. It seems to make those perqs all the more valuable when my players have to look at it and decide if they want to accept the trade-offs. Perhaps our experiences with PrC's are just vastly different?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Problem 1 - Save Bonuses for multiclassed characters are too high, at least on the "Good" saves.

That's not really a problem. Characters are more-or-less garunteed to make their "good" saves at a CR appropriate to their level anyway. It's like a fighter taking Great Fortitude...sure, it's pretty useful, in the odd chance that you're up against something WAY out of your league (or REALLY), but normally that extra +2 is bupkiss, when you've already got a high bonus.

So a Ftr1/Bbn1/Pal1/Rng1 gets a +8 to Fort...so what? His Will save is still his weakness.

I mean, the "average" DC facing a fourth level character is about 12-16. This guy will almost definatley make a Fortitude save, and almost definately fail a Will save. By the same token, a Ftr 4 with a +4 will still almost definately make a Fortitude save, and almost definately fail a Will save....there's nothing they get for beating the DC by 'extra,' so there's no real risk in letting them jack it up that high. Double it, tripple it, whatever. You're going to make the save, because you're a VERY well trained warrior.

In addition, they're missing out on some great feat chains, actual high-level powers, and anything above the most basic of skills...characters are not measured by saves alone.

 

[maddman75]

If you want PrCs to mean something in your game other than 'list of abilities', it can be done. However, you have to take control of them in your game. Here's what's needed.

1 - Tell your players that they are not available right out of the book. None of them.
2 - Also tell them that all PrCs can and will be altered both for balance (if need be) and flavor.
3 - If they want a paticular PrC, they need to tell you ahead of time. You will then work it into the campaign, and they will have to make effort to be able to join the organization, attend the school, or find a Master to teach them.
4 - In exchange for these heightened role-play requirements, let them know you will be lenient on mechanical entry requirements. (Things like the Endurance feat or 8 Ranks of Knowledge(useless))

This worked out well IMC. I had a halfling wizard/rogue interested in Arcane Trickster. In the kingdom they were in, the halflings were a subject people. They paid taxes to the lords, who sent knights when the goblins came out of the hills. But they had no say in their government at all. There was a secret clan of halfling magi who used their race's natural stealthy tendencies to gather information and influence on the leaders. The 'Halfling Illuminati' became an important part of the campaign, and one of the players' favorite actually.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...In the kingdom they were in, the halflings were a subject people. They paid taxes to the lords, who sent knights when the goblins came out of the hills. But they had no say in their government at all. There was a secret clan of halfling magi who used their race's natural stealthy tendencies to gather information and influence on the leaders. The 'Halfling Illuminati' became an important part of the campaign, and one of the players' favorite actually.

Yoinked!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Oh, I'm quite certain you didn't understand (and pretty sure you didn't really try, either). Let me elucidate.

Huh? Where did this come from? Why would I bother to reply if I didn't want to try to understand? Flaming someone without reason shuts down conversation.

EDIT: Now that I re-read what I posted originally, I think I see why steveroo took offense. None was intended. I have seen old-school gamers object to a broader variety of choices in the game (their point being it takes some of the DM's power away). That's why I responded the way I did; it was a legitimate question. Again, no offense intended.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

1) Most classes offer a +2 on the "Good" save at first level. This is bad, because it allows a Fighter-type to take Brb/F/Pal/Rgr for a +8 Fortitude "Base" Save Bonus; the same as a 12th level Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin! His trade-off? He loses only +1 on a Will save!!

And slowed down access to class abilities other than fighting ability (mostly).

Problem 1 - Save Bonuses for multiclassed characters are too high, at least on the "Good" saves.

Fix 1 - Lower save DCs by one, and lower first level class save bonuses to +1, maximum, instead of +2. Another fix would be to make multiclassing work the same way as it did in AD&D (an older edition, for anyone who homestly didn't know), where once you multiclass, you continue to take that class, for life.

As for choices, I'm all for them, but the class system isn't, so much... and there are better ways to fix that than multiclassing to an (IMHO) absurd level.

I, and many others, simply have never seen this as a problem. This is an example of something that can be tweaked at the local level, not something to mess with in the core game.

2) I also have a problem with the apparent-WotC-doctrine that "Prestige Classes are more powerful than PC (Core) classes". Why? Why not make Core PC classes as powerful, and then allow PCs to chose whether or not to take Prestige Classes and forego the later levels of PC classes?

No offense, but since you got me on a technicality below (your not mentioning a PrC), I have to point out that there is no such official doctrine from WotC. This point is extremely debatable.

I fail to see how either limits player choice. Maybe I'm just blind.

Because, as I said above, your points are not universally, or even mostly, accepted by the D&D community at large. Changing the game to something which is not agreed upon will limit people who feel the current method works fine. I'm not saying your wrong; I'm saying that these are very subjective points, upon which much debate has been conducted over the years.

I also believe that, if you really want player choice, that most abilities should be "featable", allowing PCs to modify their characters to suit what they want... This is the antithesis of the class system, however. I rather doubt that 4.0 will be a classless system!

And it would lose a ton of players. This is another point which the majority does not agree with - otherwise the game would not be as popular. WotC studied all this stuff way back when 3e was being developed. Ryan Dancey, for one, detailed why these things remained - most D&D players wanted them to remain.

There are other ways to do this, as well, besides rampant multiclassing. There are many ways, IMHO, which are better. A Ranger who wants to set deadfalls and snares shouldn't be forced to take Rogue levels, nor to join a specially-made "Trapper" PrC. He should be able to do it as a Ranger. IMHO, of course... YMMV. (And no, Profession/Craft Trapmakering won't do it - see the time & cost sections in the DMG, for why!)

What are some of these better methods? I'd like to know. And don't take that as belligerence. I'm actually trying to have a conversation. I will say that I disagree that any of the methods you decry are a problem, but are rather good, solid, balanced methods to do what the player wants - choices, in other words.

This is a very odd statement, Colonel, especially since I didn't mention a single PrC in my example... If you're referring to the F/Brb/Rgr/Pal example, then by the same standard, a Fighter is also a Hemmer-wielding-Egg, and with a MUCH lower Fortitude save!

Given that the thread is about Prestige Classes, I figured the assumption could be made that we were discussing Prestige Classes as well as multiclassing.

As for your contention that the example was "Hack & slash", take a Druid/Ranger/Rogue/Monk, and look at the Reflex saves... Not so combat-oriented, but, again, the Reflex save is higher than a fourth level PC of any of the named classes...

And, again, such a character suffers from delayed access to class abilities. That's pretty important. A Reflex save seems fairly combat-oriented to me, but I guess that's just my own perception.

...A problem that needs fixing, even if you find the class combinations "silly". They ARE (and that was part of my point, eh?)!

Given that multiclassing was changed to what it is in 3e, and given that feedback was positive to it, I would say many would disagree with your assertion that they are silly. Still, you can do what you want in your campaign; there is no real need to change the core of the game to accomodate it. Just as my own house rules shouldn't be considered for inclusion in 4e as core mechanics.

Y'know, this was an interesting debate. There is no need at all to leave in anger. We're all friends here, or at least people with a common interest.

 

[Pants]

Oh, I'm quite certain you didn't understand (and pretty sure you didn't really try, either). Let me elucidate.

1) Most classes offer a +2 on the "Good" save at first level. This is bad, because it allows a Fighter-type to take Brb/F/Pal/Rgr for a +8 Fortitude "Base" Save Bonus; the same as a 12th level Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin! His trade-off? He loses only +1 on a Will save!

He also loses:
1) Two feats for not going full Fighter, plus no access to Weapon Specialization.
2) Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense and more Rage attempts for not going Barbarian.
3)No spells, lay on hands, divine grace, aura of courage, divine health, or Turn undead for not being a 4th level Paladin.
4) No spells, bonus feats, or an Animal Companion for not going Ranger all the way.

So essentially.. this character loses out on a lot. Sure he may have the same HP and a nice Fortitude save, but are those things really worth giving up all the special abilities for? Sure you will probably make that Fortitude save, but your Will and Reflex saves will suffer in the long run, plus you'll make a really cruddy Fighter, a poor Barbarian, a weak Paladin, and a lousy Ranger. The trade-off sounds even to me.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yeah, yeah, another duplicate post. I'm an idiot. Especially when I misspell "duplicate" and have to edit again...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

He also loses:
1) Two feats for not going full Fighter, plus no access to Weapon Specialization.
2) Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense and more Rage attempts for not going Barbarian.
3)No spells, lay on hands, divine grace, aura of courage, divine health, or Turn undead for not being a 4th level Paladin.
4) No spells, bonus feats, or an Animal Companion for not going Ranger all the way.

So essentially.. this character loses out on a lot. Sure he may have the same HP and a nice Fortitude save, but are those things really worth giving up all the special abilities for? Sure you will probably make that Fortitude save, but your Will and Reflex saves will suffer in the long run, plus you'll make a really cruddy Fighter, a poor Barbarian, a weak Paladin, and a lousy Ranger. The trade-off sounds even to me.

Which was sort of my point, but which you made better than I did. Plus, I was concentrating more on non-combat abilities, which I feel get very short shrift. Such a character seems to lose out on even more in the combat area (at least, the way I see it,w hich may not be the way everyone else sees it), which, with sincere respect to steveroo, obviates the point about improved combat abilities, in my opinion.