Prestige Classes and Worldbuilding

[KDLadage]

Over on the RPG net forums, there is a discussion of Prestige Classes and how well the classes in teh various splatbooks, DMG, campaign settings and so forth 'work' -- part of the question is asking if the idea of Prestige Classes was a good idea to begin with. That threads is here, so you can read it yourself if you are so inclined.

However, I made a post in that thread that, I feel, sums up a few of my thoughts on world-building, the Players Handbook, Prestige Classes and so forth. I thought I might chare that here, and ask if any of you had any opinions on it. Am I off my rocker, hitting the nail on the head, or somewhere inbetween...? Let us begin.

So far, I would say that the biggest problem with prestige classes has been the misuse of them by players and DMs in the D&D/d20 community.

Prestige classes were never intended to be generic -- so at the most, each example if a prestige class given in the DMG or any of the various splatbooks (or campaign settings, or Dragon Magazine, or what have you) should -- at most -- be seen as a template for the creation of a Prestige class for your campaign. Possible exceptions are those prestige classes in Campaign settings for those people that are playing in that setting.

A Prestige class should be closely tied into the background of a setting. If it isn’t, it is nothing more than a 'bag-o-tricks' -- and this is what causes the Prestige Class concept to break down.

This is also one of the reasons I feel that the Paladin (and to a lesser extent, the Barbarian and the Monk) should have been Prestige Classes. After all, I cannot think of too many High Fantasy campaign ideas that would not include a dedicated warrior (Fighter and/or Ranger), the Religious cast (Cleric and/or Druid), the learned type (Wizard and/or Sorcerer) and the general practitioner (Rogue and/or Bard).

Rangers and Monks represent rather specialized ideas that may or may not be in every campaign.

I feel that after the "Eastern Monk" of the Player's Handbook, an example of a "Western Monk" should have been given, but that is probably just me. I feel that the authors of the book should have made it explicitly clear that, in some campaigns, it will not be appropriate to have both Wizards and Sorcerers, or both Clerics and Druids, or both Fighters and Rangers or what-have you.

In some campaigns, the Dungeon Master will want to select one of each of these pairs (or both, depending upon the game world) and stick with it. After all, in some game worlds, it may not be appropriate to have three Arcane spellcasting classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard) -- it may only be appropriate to have one... or two... or even more (perhaps the rangers of that world are Arcane-Types).

This goes for all of the "and/or" selections above. I can think of a hundred ways that a campaign world might only have the classes Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer and Bard as the core classes; campaigns where the Fighter and the Wizard represent "foreign" ways that are used as NPCs only.

And this (to get back to the topic at hand) is the problem. Prestige Classes taken off the rack are not the way to go in campaign and world building. Pick and Choose -- edit if needed -- before you allow a class -- even a core class -- into a game. Make sure that it feels the way you want your game to feel.

Hell, do the same thing for races, too. Use the Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and the splatbooks as as worked example instead of hard and fast. It makes your game world a lot more unique and flavorful; and in the end, your players will appreciate it more.

 

[Desdichado]

I think that in many cases published prestige classes aren't much more than bags of tricks, but many others are concepts that can be generic across campaign settings, although they are certainly specific relative to the core classes.

Your post almost implies that I shouldn't use any prestige classes, but just look at them and make my own with them as examples. I certainly don't think you need to go so far: just eliminate most of them from the campaign you play unless they fulfill a very special or certain role that's appropriate. Fists of Hextor, for example, may be a perfectly appropriate organization for many campaigns (especially if using the PHB pantheon) and with a name change, they may be appropriate for a ton more.

Where prestige classes have a problem, IMO, is where DMs allow any and all prestige classes, and players start gunning for prestige classes willy nilly. I think that needs to be a collaborative effort with the DM: which prestige classes make sense given the campaign, the player's desires and all that.

For that matter, though, I think players taking prestige classes is still a bit of a novelty. Most prestige classes turn characters that are already relatively narrow in scope into characters that are really narrow in scope. Prestige classes are really more appropriate for NPCs most of the time.

 

[Hand of Evil]

To me prestige classes are used to define my world. You are just not a fighter, monk, or wizard, you are something more. It helps tell a story and add spice to a game.

I do think DMs allow too many. Most players (that I have dealings with) think they are a player choice and a lot of DMs just allow any and all without thinking about game balance and if they have a place in their world.

 

[KDLadage]

I think that in many cases published prestige classes aren't much more than bags of tricks, but many others are concepts that can be generic across campaign settings, although they are certainly specific relative to the core classes.

True. Some can be -- and any of them might fit any given world.

Your post almost implies that I shouldn't use any prestige classes, but just look at them and make my own with them as examples.

I am sorry if that was the impression I gave -- far from it, actually. Some can be used, but my problem lies with what you state below -- the idea of allowing any and all without thinking about the impact such a group of people would have on the campaign world.

I do believe, however, that the best prestige classes for any given world will be those that were designed expressly for that world. Others can be used well -- if used carefully, and sparingly.

I certainly don't think you need to go so far: just eliminate most of them from the campaign you play unless they fulfill a very special or certain role that's appropriate.

Exactly.

Fists of Hextor, for example, may be a perfectly appropriate organization for many campaigns (especially if using the PHB pantheon) and with a name change, they may be appropriate for a ton more.

Sure... but then, as you have implied, it would require that you have a pantheon that includes someone with Hextor's mindset. That being the case, sure. But to allow it simply because it is 'official' -- this is where I am seeing trouble in other games I have seen.

Where prestige classes have a problem, IMO, is where DMs allow any and all prestige classes, and players start gunning for prestige classes willy nilly.

Well said.

I think that needs to be a collaborative effort with the DM: which prestige classes make sense given the campaign, the player's desires and all that.

Either a collaborative effort, or an effort of world design that was well thought out before the game began.

For that matter, though, I think players taking prestige classes is still a bit of a novelty. Most prestige classes turn characters that are already relatively narrow in scope into characters that are really narrow in scope.

I am not sure about this one. Most players in my games tend to attempt to be 'Jack of All Trades' -- which is rather odd, given that I have 11 players right now, you would think they would each specialize.

Prestige classes are really more appropriate for NPCs most of the time.

Some certainly are, and should be restricted to such roles.

 

[KDLadage]

To me prestige classes are used to define my world. You are just not a fighter, monk, or wizard, you are something more. It helps tell a story and add spice to a game.

That was certianly their intent, according to those in the know.

I do think DMs allow too many. Most players (that I have dealings with) think they are a player choice and a lot of DMs just allow any and all without thinking about game balance and if they have a place in their world.

I guess game balance was never something I had a problem with here -- for me, it is the level of suspension of disbelief that I must maintain.

This can already get stretched with some adventuring parties... but to then throw Prestige Classes -- which are supposed to represent organizations, ideals and modes of thought -- into the mix, and the odd combinations begint o arise.

As it is,I tend to restric players to no more than 1 prestige class in a character. I just cannot see how someone could split their time between such organizations and/or ideals. To me, it is a lot like being a Priest (specialized Catholic Cleric) and a Rabbi (specialized Jewish Cleric) -- a little hard to adhere to both ideals here.

 

[RogueJK]

The main problem that I have with Prestige Classes is that most of them are overpowered (or the core classes are underpowered, depending on how you look at it). A Fighter10 usually has no chance of standing up to a Fighter5/Prestige Class5, for example. They are making it where you almost have to take one or more prestige classes in order to stay competitive.

I think that Prestige Classes should have more drawbacks. And just so you know, I don't consider having to "waste" a feat or "waste" 4 ranks in a cross-class skill to be a fitting drawback.

It seems like most Prestige Classes gain a lot while losing close to nothing. This is especially true with the non magic-using classes. Magic-using Prestige Classes can be toned down by slowing the rate at which they gain spellcasting levels, and most of the more powerful ones do. The other core classes, on the other hand, usually lose nothing or close to nothing by taking levels in a Prestige Class, while they gain lots of nifty abilities not available to the regular classes. There should be some incentive to stay with a core class instead of taking a Prestige Class.

 

[Angelsboi]

Dragon Magazine had a GREAT article on this.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The requirements for prestige classes are almost always negligable. They require skill points which the player hadn't really allocated anyway or feats that the player wanted in the first place.

The generic ones given in the "builder books" (e.g. Sword and Fist) are a little generic for my taste. I think PrCs -- as mentioned above -- should enhance an existing world not be a square peg the GM should try to fit in. The Purple Dragon Knight from the FRCS is an excellent example of what I look for in a PrC(*) It gives the player something to strive for, it gives the player a few neat abilities, and it has context and structure within the world. Other PrCs, like the Drunken Master, make me want to say "huh?" The Drunken Master is an overpowered monk class that just sort of ambles into a campaign. Who are these guys? I've heard of the martial arts style, but would my monks develop that? The PrC raises more questions and doesn't really solve any problems.

IMHO, of course.

BG

(*) or the stuff from my site. plug,plug,plug.

 

[Desdichado]

I am not sure about this one. Most players in my games tend to attempt to be 'Jack of All Trades' -- which is rather odd, given that I have 11 players right now, you would think they would each specialize.

Presumably they're doing so with multiclassing or buying skills at a penalty. A core assumption of D&D that's as old as the hills is that characters are specialists and the team is the jack of all trades. The mechanics, relative to other games, like GURPS, for instance, don't allow you to be good jacks of all trades otherwise. Most published prestige classes actually narrow your focus considerably even from the core classes.

As to your other points, I agree that just because Fists of Hextor are "official" they shouldn't be used: they should only be used if the concept fits the campaign. My point with that one was that it was a concept that fit many campaigns, and was thus one that you could expect to see used often.

And although in theory, the best prestige classes for each campaign are the ones designed specifically for that campaign, in reality many DMs lack the time, inclination, confidence or know-how to develop decent classes on their own, and are thus content to simply use published classes. Personally, I prefer to make minor tweaks and modifications to extant mechanics rather than try to create my own. Also, with the proliferation of prestige classes that we have by now (must be hundreds published by Wizards of the Coast alone, what with Oriental Adventures, the splatbooks and Dragon Magazine) it's hard to believe that somewhere out there someone hasn't done your concept already and you can borrow and tweak it rather than start over. Maybe not, if your concept is really unique, but I think that's not what's happening most of the time.

 

[D'karr]

Prestige Classes

I agree with the idea that Prestige Classes are world specific.

In my campaign I have created only one Prestige Class, in close cooperation with the player that gave me the concept and I'm modifying the Shadowdancer from the DMG and the WeaponMaster from S&F. They were the only two that fit into my world.

I see Prestige Classes as very unique organizations (maybe even secret societies) that have specific goals. Prestige Classes are not meant to be a free for all (which Prestige Class am I going to be today).

I have kept them that way in my game world. I would do the same even if I was using either Greyhawk or The Forgotten Realms.