Prestigious Classes from UA

[sledged]

If you make the bard, paladin, and ranger classes PrCs, with what core class would you replace a race's favored class? Would you use a blanket rule (e.g. all races that had paladin as a favored class now have fighter as a favored class), or would you do it on a case-by-case basis?

 

[Pax]

Geneally, I'd expect to make choices along these lines:

Paladin -> Cleric (or Fighter)
Ranger -> Fighter (or Druid)
Bard -> Rogue (or Sorceror)

However, each race would have to be looked at carefully to see what would be best for it. Gnoms, for instance, I might put back to the pre-3.5 Wizard(Illusionist) preferred class. ^_^ Also, since that involves tinkering ANYway ... I'd not restrict myself to Core classes. Preferred(Bard) for a race that is also reasonably militant, might become Preferred(Swashbuckler) or Preferred(Hexblade), an oriental-flavor race with Preferred(Paladin) might get Preferred(Samurai).

A very pious race might instead have Preferred(Paladin) replaced with Preferred(Favored Soul), on the other hand. ^_^

 

[sledged]

Gnoms, for instance, I might put back to the pre-3.5 Wizard(Illusionist) preferred class.

Oh, God, no. I never liked the fact that, in 3E, gnomes were limited to illusionists, while elves had all of wizardry available to them. I was thinking more along the lines of druid for gnomes.

Also, since that involves tinkering ANYway ... I'd not restrict myself to Core classes. Preferred(Bard) for a race that is also reasonably militant, might become Preferred(Swashbuckler) or Preferred(Hexblade), an oriental-flavor race with Preferred(Paladin) might get Preferred(Samurai).

A very pious race might instead have Preferred(Paladin) replaced with Preferred(Favored Soul), on the other hand. ^_^

When I said "core classes," I meant base classes that can be taken by any character from the start, so I'm definitely open to other classes outside the PHB. I like idea of switching swashbuckler for bard. I should also note that when I do use the prestigious classes, I plan to use a martial (non-spellcasting) versions of the paladin and ranger, which leads me to this question.

 

[dcollins]

We use them in a 3.0 game, and the only such preferred class we've had to deal with is: Ranger --> Druid.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you make the bard, paladin, and ranger classes PrCs, with what core class would you replace a race's favored class? Would you use a blanket rule (e.g. all races that had paladin as a favored class now have fighter as a favored class), or would you do it on a case-by-case basis?

For the Paladin and the Ranger it is quite straightforward:

The prestige Paladin requires you to be able to cast Protection from Evil as divine spell + turn undead, and only the Cleric can do those within core classes. That means you HAVE to be a Cleric (1 level at least) to become a Paladin.
Therefore you should replace favored class Paladin with Cleric.

The prestige Ranger requires you to be able to cast Calm Animals as divine spell, and only the Druid (or a Cleric with Animal domain) can do that within core classes. That means you HAVE to be either a Druid or a Cleric with Animal domain (1 level at least) to become a Ranger.
If we have to choose one, it's obviously more appropriate to choose Druid.

The prestigious Bard is different because you can qualify either with Wizard or Sorcerer levels, which makes for interesting variant bards IMHO.
On the other hand, the Rogue is the only other core class with Perform as class skill, which means that whatever core arcane spellcaster you are, to become a Bard you either have to (1) wait until level 14 or (2) take at least a level of Rogue (or otherwise find non-core ways to get 8 Perform ranks earlier).
For this reason I would replace favored class Bard with Rogue.

 

[sledged]

For the Paladin and the Ranger it is quite straightforward:

The prestige Paladin requires you to be able to cast Protection from Evil as divine spell + turn undead...
<snip>
The prestige Ranger requires you to be able to cast Calm Animals as divine spell...
<snip>

Read my second post in this thread, and follow the link in it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Slightly off-topic but I also want to toss in my extra opinion, to expand what I said above.

The UA idea stems from the fact that several playing groups don't like 1st level Paladins, Rangers and Bards because they think these characters should always be high-level. (as a matter of fact, a few neither like 1st Wizards for the same reason).

First of all, a DM could simply rule that you can take Pal/Ran/Brd levels only after character 5 for example. This would already work IMO, with the only drawback that you would "finish" the core class progression only if you go into epic levels.

Instead in UA they decided (IMHO because WotC designers have become prisoners of their own rules mechanics) to provide compressed classes so that you get in 15 levels the same features of 20 levels in the core versions.
When they had to come up with requirements, they thought it was a good idea to choose clerics- and druid-only abilities, which unfortunately restricts the idea of Paladins/Rangers to former clerics/druids who choose a battle life, which in general it's a much less common idea than former fighters (or barbarian or rogues for the Ranger) who later become dedicated to a deity or otherwise to nature and the wilderness. IMXP that was instead the typical image wanted by those who like Pals and Rans to be high level only.

However, with this specific implementation of the 2 classes, I think it's really a must to change favored classes into Cleric and Druid, otherwise you are really going to risk some troubles for many characters.

 

[Li Shenron]

Read my second post in this thread, and follow the link in it.

If you take away all the spellcasting capabilities and requirements, then disregard my previous suggestion completely and replace favored class Paladin with Fighter, and Ranger with Fighter or Barbarian.

 

[dcollins]

When they had to come up with requirements, they thought it was a good idea to choose clerics- and druid-only abilities, which unfortunately restricts the idea of Paladins/Rangers to former clerics/druids who choose a battle life, which in general it's a much less common idea than former fighters (or barbarian or rogues for the Ranger) who later become dedicated to a deity or otherwise to nature and the wilderness.

I kind of like the UA Prestigious Classes. One thing that pleased me (and I only figured this out after analysis for a debate) was that any of the three can be qualified for by any combination of 5 levels from the key classes.

That is, a Paladin can be any: Clr1/Ftr4 to Clr4/Ftr1... Ranger: any Drd1/Ftr4 to Drd4/Ftr1... Bard: any Ftr1/Wiz4 to Ftr4/Wiz1.

So this can be synchronized quite well with your notion (which I also agree with). Say it's more common for Paladins to start out as Fighters, proceed Fighter levels 1 to 4, then find faith at 5th level with Clr1, and after that they're Paladins.

 

[Li Shenron]

One thing that pleased me (and I only figured this out after analysis for a debate) was that any of the three can be qualified for by any combination of 5 levels from the key classes.

Yes I agree that this is good. Especially for the Bard, since you can qualify both with Wizard or Sorcerer levels, so you can have an Int-based Bard which cast spells with preparation for example.

However the precise spells requirements of Paladin and Ranger cut the possibility out for them, for which there is only one choice (well, there's Cleric with Animal domain who qualifies for Ranger).

You still have to be a Cleric before becoming a Paladin for example, which is not necessarily something everyone likes.