[Prestige Classes] Hey guys, as a player, would this upset you?

[NoOneofConsequence]

Just on the issue of dumping all your skill points from one level into one skill and gaining a massive level jump up from zero, how about this concept:

From birth to age 25 someone lives inland, they never see a coastline and never live near anything more impressive than a creek. Then they move to a city near the coast and they see the sea for the first time. They're entranced - they've never seen anything so beautiful. They learn to swim and they find that they love it. In fact they love it so much that in just a couple of months they're top swimmers, they do or hours every day. They had a life changing experience and they respond accordingly.

or

After ten years in the same dead end job the rookie that you trained gets promoted over you and you've just had enough. So you knuckle down, go to night school and learn comp sci and web design even though you've never liked computers and you have shown no aptitude up til now.

or

You've been a complete screw up your whole life and then someone buys you a helicopter flight for your birthday. You've never enjoyed anything so much in your life and you realise what it is you've been put on earth to do. You go back to school and study all the necessary courses to get your pilot's licence and fly choppers.

8 skill ranks at a go is not really that big a deal - it's not necessarily munchkinism, maybe the character just figured out what he wants to do with his life?

 

[hong]

If a student can't make it into Harvard because he doesn't have the grades, that's not a limitation on his free will.

First, let us make the (clearly extremely obscure) assumption that the character in question meets the mechanical prerequisites for the prestige class in question, because otherwise the whole question of taking multiple PrCs becomes moot. Now, tell me again how "can meet the prerequisites but can't get in" equates to "doesn't have the grades".

When PrC's are organizations, that's a possibility.

Do you commonly have obnoxiously prejudiced organisations in games you run?

Furthermore, what if a player wanted to play a Jedi in a D&D campaign or a ninja in a Call of Cthulhu game? It just doesn't fit the genre.

Ah, clearly you mean to imply that Jedi ace, Jedi master and Jedi scholar don't fit Star Wars. THANK YOU, "DonAdam", if that is your real name.

If "free will" means "letting my players do whatever they want even when it doesn't make sense" then, yes, I will limit free will.

How very fallacial of you.


Hong "bustin' to use that word since 2001" Ooi

 

[hong]

don't think of it as limiting free will, so much as limiting free will so everyone else can have fun too. This was really obvious in the last hero game my brother ran b/c the guy that shapechanged was a mega bad*** and in order to challenge him, the battles basically turned into a battle of two-the DM and the shapechanger, and everyone else just window dressing.

That's fine, but the original poster didn't say anything about limiting powergaming. In fact, multiple PrCs can hinder just as much as help in terms of munching out a character. If (to take a D&D example) you have levels in elemental savant, duelist _and_ deepwood sniper, you're probably not as strong a character as if you'd just stuck to one of those, or didn't bother with PrCs at all.

If you _do_ want to munch out a character, the way to do it is to take multiple PrCs _whose themes overlap_. Thus, for example, you might take deepwood sniper, order of the bow initiate and peerless archer and get someone with ranged Power Attack, sneak attacks, _and_ super crits. However, when you start talking about overlapping PrCs, you also move away from the scenario originally mentioned (Jedi ace, pilot and scholar), and so the solution proposed becomes moot. In in-game terms, it might actually make some sense for someone to have levels as OotBI, PA and DWS, but there's no way I'm allowing it in my game for the reason you mention.

 

[Larry Fitz]

If you find that everyone is playing a PrC then something is probably wrong. If everyone is playing multiple PrC's then something is definitely wrong. PrC's are a way of adding unique and interesting classes to the world to give it more detail and flavor. PC's take part in that detail and flavor by joining thet organization that the PrC represents if it is appropriate to the character and the setting. If every fighter wants to be in a specific PrC it is unbalanced and should be carefully reconsidered by the DM.

All that being said, if the original post was something being given to PC's at the start of a campaign, then they can choose not to play if they don't like those ground rules. Personally I applaud the GM for taking a stand that PrC's must serve the story, and not be a way to min/max characters. I very much like how Paul ended his post, "I want to put the Prestige back in Prestige classes" Huzzah Paul, me too.

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

I think your rules are great, but obtaining ranks quickly can be realistically possible, depending on the circumstances. But I like it, sounds like a great way to handle prestige classes.

 

[Shadowdancer]

That's fine, but the original poster didn't say anything about limiting powergaming

Maybe you need to go back and reread the original post. He might not have used the words "limiting powergaming," but that is clearly the intent of what he wrote.

I also find your views on a DM making guidelines for his campaign equating to limiting the players' free will puzzling. Are you saying that all players should be able to use any PrC for a game, whether the DM allows those PrCs in his game or not? That seems to put control of the game in the hands of the players, and not the DM.

As an example, let's say there is a PrC for members of a Thieves Guild (I'm sure there are several out there). The player wants to play this PrC because it gives the character cool abilities. But what if the DM finds the concept of thieves guilds "too cliche," and develops a campaign world in which thieves guilds don't exist. So should the player be allowed to play the PrC he wants, or does the DM retain control of his campaign?

If a group starts a game campaign with clearly defined rules/understandings about what is and isn't allowed within that campaign, including PrCs, I think that's fine. And that is what the original poster was trying to do for his campaign. If the GM says up front there is role-playing requirement for PrCs in addition to the listed minimum requirements to qualify, then that's fine. It's the GM's game, he should be able to run it the way he wants.

 

[S'mon]

My approach - which I think is pretty much the DMG default one - is that if a player wants a prestige class, they need to clear it with the DM first. I allow it if it fits with the character, and its abilities seem reasonable.
Likewise if a PC wants to take a level in a regular class they don't already have levels in, they need to clear it with me first. I'll look over the suggested prestige class and make changes as necessary to suit my campaign. So far, the 7 PCs are around 10th level, 2 have Prestige Class levels - one in S&F Duellist, the other in a Warlord class adapted from the Kalamar prestige class but with the details created in consultation between me & the player. And Tallarn is hoping to have his PC take a Prestige class eventually where he's the Son of God.
As for taking multiple prestige classes, I haven't banned it, but I'd probably look pretty askance at the suggestion. Certainly taking lots of single levels in prestige classes just for the powers is a no-no.

 

[hong]

Maybe you need to go back and reread the original post. He might not have used the words "limiting powergaming," but that is clearly the intent of what he wrote.

If so, it's a dumb way of doing it. The only thing I see in the original post is some vague desire for characters to have a "reason for being". Any powergamer worth his/her salt can come up with a plausible reason for just why _this_ particular combination of prestige classes and abilities makes perfect sense within the game world, despite being broken six dozen ways from Sunday.

Repost....

From: Nockermensch (nockermensch@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: 90% of Munchkinism, Loopholes and Broken Rules...
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: 2002-12-23 03:18:59 PST


Tin Coyote <tincoyote@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<i0d90vc576mqteoep3d5se3h4loasfb51l@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:49:29 -0800, Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 17:27:48 GMT, Loren Pechtel
> ><lorenpechtel@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:26:53 -0800, Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>This operates on the theory classes are distinct entities that one has
> >>>to go through some special process to become. I think in your
> >>>example, the proper response would be "You don't get it; he wants to
> >>>learn to sneak attack. Since that by definition requires a rogue
> >>>level, that's the way he's doing it, but it has nothing to do with
> >>>becoming a thief."
> >>
> >> Yes. James Bond is obviously a rogue. Is he a theif, though?
> >
> >And not even all characters who would be rogues in D&D are obvious for
> >such. All the class really says is that the character has some
> >emphasis on skill and what might be called unorthodox methods of
> >dealing with trouble.
>
>
> Oh, I agree with you guys to a point. I perhaps didn't use the best
> example of Sneak Attack. What I was trying to point out, is that the
> points that Loren and Wayne bring up have to be discussed between the
> player and the DM.
>
> Many players don't actually think about how appropriate or
> inappropriate any given ability or class change is. They simply add
> the numbers and decide. If players came to me with the arguments that
> Loren and Wayne have, I become more inclined to listen, because it's
> not purely mechanistic.
>
> TC

Hint: It *IS* purely mechinistic. You were deceived by the oldest
powergamer's DM-trap.

See, we powergamers work at a deeper level. We want to play powerful
combat machines, so we add numbers. AFTER we have a veritable monster
created, we then make a game rationale for such behemot. Most
non-powergaming DMs think we're using "roleplaying" arguments when
we're in fact adapting the character story around a killer concept.
For a real example, I bet that our group wasn't the only one who saw a
misterious disappearance of two longsword wielding elves in the
AD&D->3E transition.

Pfft, some people never understand D&D - it's all about the damage.

@ @ Nockermen5ch, or about DC.

I also find your views on a DM making guidelines for his campaign equating to limiting the players' free will puzzling.

Tell me again how

And yeah, I'm placing this restriction on my players becuase of past (and present) playing sytles. In fact, I HAVE a characters who is a Scoundrel 1/Jedi 4/Jedi Ace 1/Force Warrior 4/Jedi Weapon Master 3. I makes me upset to even think about it

equates to "making guidelines for his campaign". Because to me, it sounds just like silly whinging that someone was thinking outside the box.

Are you saying that all players should be able to use any PrC for a game, whether the DM allows those PrCs in his game or not?

Nonsense.

That seems to put control of the game in the hands of the players, and not the DM.

Given that I see D&D (and all roleplaying, in general) as a collaborative pursuit on the part of both the DM _and_ the players, I don't see anything wrong with the players having some degree of control over the game world. It's not just my world, it's theirs as well.

As an example, let's say there is a PrC for members of a Thieves Guild (I'm sure there are several out there). The player wants to play this PrC because it gives the character cool abilities. But what if the DM finds the concept of thieves guilds "too cliche," and develops a campaign world in which thieves guilds don't exist. So should the player be allowed to play the PrC he wants, or does the DM retain control of his campaign?

The DM should have communicated the desired game parameters to the player _before_ the campaign started, and then they could come to a mutually acceptable solution. Some people ("specialists" to use Robin Laws' jargon) _want_ to play a certain type of character all the time, whether it's a ninja, paladin or whatnot. If the DM wants to retain such a player, then it's incumbent on their part to make sure that ninjas (substitute any genre-specific label you like) have a niche in the game world.

 

[Squire James]

Nothing in that first post stops a PC from dumping 8 ranks into pilot in one level advance. Nothing at all! He just can't be a Jedi Ace, that's all. I could probably see it if the campaign's about to take a 2-year "game time" break (so he can "log his hours"), but otherwise I agree completely.

That being said, it appears that Luke Skywalker would be unlikely to become a Jedi Ace in that person's campaign. He spent most of his life as a farmer! Then again, farmers are "super characters" who can change their levels in commoner to any class they want to, so Luke might pass muster after all.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

How I handle Prestige Classes.