Prestige Classes - A Crutch?

[Ace]

I have given up on PRCs and do not allow them in my campaign.

The initial idea, the idea that an order of knights might have its own special class that only Knights of the Round Table had access to, sounded neat.

And yet, there is no reason why you can't make a Knight of the Round Table with the Fighter class or the Paladin class.

Furthermore, the 1000's of PRCs meant that some were more valuable than others from a game mechanic perspective (Archmage, Frenzied Berserker, Deepwood Sniper, Incantrix, etc.). And it added extra complexity to an already complex set of rules.

I am severly wobbling in this direction. The concept behind PRC's is really cool but I am just a little squeamish about using them ---

There is a petty little part of me that wishes they had been left out of D&D entirely but since a lot of people love em it is just a petty little part

IMNC (IN my next campaign) I think other kewl bits (extra feats, weapons styles and so on) will be used instead

 

[Henry]

One other note: I just finished working with a fellow player to create a prestige class in my FR Campaign, currently on hiatus. I created a Mystra Paladin which uses turn undead attempts as another form of "magic currency", and at sufficiently high levels, he can use it for additional spell damage, for creating a limited version of the Chosens' Silver Fire, and at the highest levels, he can sacrifice part of himself to shut off a truly dangerous caster from the weave!

First of all, we both wanted him to have something to distinguish him (he was starting a new order of "Wizard/Paladins" and wanted to give him godly boons without making him an outright Chosen), and second, I wanted to have a way for him to grow into this power. So we created a mechanic that has been implemented in other sources, but not treated in depth.

The prestige class is a way to create for a character to grow into a special role or ability, without just "handing it to him." The DMG states that you should work to create PrC's specific to the campaign - and I guarantee that his role could not be done with just a Wizard/Paladin - he wouldn't have the kinds of power needed for such a role.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't -think- anyone has particularly mentioned this issue yet, so if I might air an additional slant on the issue of prestige classes?

They appear in the DMG rather than the PHB, and although the rationale for them has been greatly weakened since their origin in 3e, the principle is still "DM's option about whether, how and when" to include them in the campaign.

I don't recall the details, but when Monte was originally writing them up in the 3e DMG the impression I got was that he was encouraging DM's to come up with campaign-specific prestige classes, tied in to some organisation or aspect of your campaign in order to accentuate particular groups. Membership of a group at one level or another seemed to me to be a very strong element of the premise of prestige classes.

Unfortunately WotC and others then went on to produce hundreds of bland, faceless prestige classes (often covering styles of PC that IMO would have been better describing as "take three levels of fighter, two of rogue and the following feats, plus new feat xx in order to be recognised as an xyz"). This led to the watered down view of prestige classes in 3.5e as player-oriented options rather than campaign-reinforcing options.

When a DM uses campaign specific prestige classes which are tied in to organisations and groups within the campaign, and which come with both privileges and responsibilities I believe prestige classes can lead to a much richer campaign than would otherwise be the case.

I admit that my view was forged in the fires of the release of 3e, and may not seem applicable in the brave new 3.5e world, but there you have it

Cheers

 

[BryonD]

I don't recall the details, but when Monte was originally writing them up in the 3e DMG the impression I got was that he was encouraging DM's to come up with campaign-specific prestige classes, tied in to some organisation or aspect of your campaign in order to accentuate particular groups. Membership of a group at one level or another seemed to me to be a very strong element of the premise of prestige classes.

Unfortunately WotC and others then went on to produce hundreds of bland, faceless prestige classes (often covering styles of PC that IMO would have been better describing as "take three levels of fighter, two of rogue and the following feats, plus new feat xx in order to be recognised as an xyz"). This led to the watered down view of prestige classes in 3.5e as player-oriented options rather than campaign-reinforcing options.

This is certainly the case. But I have never understood why it was so. Having a requirement that PClasses be tied to an organization is like playing tennis wearing handcuffs. All of the campaign richness of organizationally based PClasses can be fully realized in a game with non-organizational PClasses also present. So making organizations be a requirement adds nothign but a restriction.

The second part of your arguement goes back to the tangent issue of bad design. You can go out on the web and find bad PClasses. You can also find bad core classes, bad feats, bad spells, bad skills, bad gear..... You name it. The fact that bad design exists does nothing to establish the case against PClasses.

 

[Urbannen]

I don't like the structure of most PrCs. I think that if you can take a PrC at 6th level, then it should have 15 levels to take you 20.

I prefer new or alternate base classes to PrCs. I was really pleased with the recent Dragon magazine article that gave alternate cleric and druid classes that went from level 1 to 20. I'm going to be using the crusader class that appeared there in an upcoming campaign as a substitute for the 2E Faiths and Avatars crusader.

 

[Hardhead]

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.

At CRs appropriate for their level, a character will usually make his "good" save. But it's not a gimme. A multiclassed character, though...

There's a character in my group whose is a multiclassed Cleric/Warmashal/Contemplative with the Mysticism domain (a prestige domain granting a bonus to all saves equal to your charisma modifier). His only "bad" save would be reflex.... except his has the Warmarshall ability that grants a bonus to everyone's reflex save equal to his charisma modifier (this stacks with the Paladin/Mysticism bonus). And his charisma modifier is oh so high! In effect, he has *no* bad save. each one is so high that he can't fail except on a roll of 1. He's next to invulnerable to magic. Yes, I think this is a serious problem.


- Z a c h

 

[Psion]

There's a character in my group whose is a multiclassed Cleric/Warmashal/Contemplative with the Mysticism domain (a prestige domain granting a bonus to all saves equal to your charisma modifier). His only "bad" save would be reflex.... except his has the Warmarshall ability that grants a bonus to everyone's reflex save equal to his charisma modifier (this stacks with the Paladin/Mysticism bonus).

That is seriously munchkinized/rules lawyered. I would rule that at least the mysticism and paladin bonus are identical and don't stack. I'd be tempted to say that about the warmarshall bonus too.

 

[drnuncheon]

Y'know, this is a point I feel is lost on too many gamers. Way too often we see rants posted about how this or that is "too easy" or that a "real gamer" would take the time to create everything whole cloth. Some critics of monster books are who come to mind - "well," they sniff, "I never use monster books; they are a crutch for those without imagination - I craft every monster I use from scratch!"

If someone made that sort of comment to me I would point out to them that a true gamer would never use any books printed by other people - after all, theylre just a crutch for those without imagination.

J
I'll take those crutches off of your hands...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

When a DM uses campaign specific prestige classes which are tied in to organisations and groups within the campaign, and which come with both privileges and responsibilities I believe prestige classes can lead to a much richer campaign than would otherwise be the case.

I admit that my view was forged in the fires of the release of 3e, and may not seem applicable in the brave new 3.5e world, but there you have it

I'm with PS 100% on attitude toward prestige classes -- I'm not really a fan of the mechanic, except as a means of campaign customization. IMO, PrCs should almost always have ties to campaign-specific groups and organizations, so that a character benefitting from the class also gains certain obligations to that group.

That said, the cat got out of the bag as soon as the first splatbook was published, and PrCs are seen by the vast majority as PC customization tools.

I don't think the 3.5 revision has changed anything -- in some ways it has improved the definition, clarifying intended uses for PrCs with examples in the DMG -- it's simply too late to undo the perception of the role of the Prestige Class. But then, maybe it shouldn't be undone, if that's the way most gamers like it, judging by the number of PrC-inclusive supplements that sell.

Luckily, from my point of view, they're still in the DMG, and still optional.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He may be invulnerable to magic, but a cha-draining monster attack or poison screws him good....

Even if you're feeling less vindictive, the dude's not exactly a combat powerhouse...seperate him from the party, or just ambush with a big-hitting monster, and you've got a situation where those saves mean jack.