Prestigous Woes...

[terrainmonkey]

Thanks pirate, i wasn't going to respond to that because... well, i'll be nice. you're right, everyone is entitled to thier own opinion, and i chose to display mine. When 3.0 came out, the concept of prestige classes was still in its infancy, with only those in the DM guide. Those were fine, and even those were supposed to be DM NPCs only, or so that's how i read it anyway. I didn't allow them, and my players were happy. Now, you can't look in a d20 or OGL book without seeing a dozen or so weak, unoriginal underpowered prestige classes that newbies and munchkins want to play just because they grant one or two feats or special abilities. back in 1st ed, if you were a myrmidon you were a 6th level fighter. period. Now, a myrmidon is a prestige class of a fighter. (now, this is an EXAMPLE of my argument, and may not be the case.) The problem with prestige classes is that when a new one comes out that seems cool to certain players, they do it just to get the powers, and not for roleplaying. This kind of character concept is deplorable at best, and is not true to the aspect of game play for which it was originally designed. Try bringing a prestige class into a game run by a 25 yr. DM and see how fast your character sheet gets ripped in half. You want to play a monk of the scarlet initiate? great, you are a monk. not a monk4/scarlet initiate 3, just a monk 7th level. deal with it. that's how i run my game, and that's how the game has been fun for 30 years. prestige classes are ruining the game, and i have had so many people asking to do a 2nd ed game again, because of it. There, i've had my say. thanks. for more on this rant, go here: http://www.hauntedchapel.com/Rants004.htm

 

[Sejs]

And that's precisely what's included in the DMG II, due in 2005.

Hooray!

 

[Psion]

Psion-- DMs flex their muscles because they can. It's allowed.

Whether its allowed and whether it's prudent to make for an enjoyable gaming experience are two entirely different considerations.

the DM is the guy who understands game balance, (well most do anyway)

Were we to take some boastful posters early in this thread as examples of GMs, I would say your faith is misplaced. I see more concern about smacking down players and showing them who is boss than balancing, much less trying to accomodate players and work their concepts into the game.

i have a lot more respect for a player when i see this on his character sheet: fighter 17, than when i see ftr 3/sor 2/hexblade 4/rogue 4/assassin 2/kensai 2.

Which is an entirely different case than that which prompted my response. I was replying to a person who was bragging about how he denies any prestige classes. That's a different matter than preventing a character who you would have good reason to suspect was not built with roleplaying in mind.

If you don't have enough imagination to make your character cool in one class, go back to video games and leave D&D to people who can actually think and have imagination.
flame away, 'cuz i know it's coming.

Since your statement seems designed to incite, you should not be surprised if someone did. That said, I see little reason to argue about it. If you wish to judge the imagination of others on such a vacuous criteria, I don't imagine I'll be able to disabuse you of it. But this is just a game, and plenty of us out there will survive having our imagination thought so little of by you, and have more fun in so doing.

 

[Humanophile]

Terrainmonkey, what you really seem to be against is glut. I am too. But publishers need to put out books, and there are certain crunch-bits that are to be expected. PRC's, feats, and spells are big ones. The best solution is to realize that you'll never be able to use all of the book, but to find ways to use the bits that strike you as interesting. It's one thing for a PRC to appear out of thin air. It's another entirely if you know that a player of yours is interested in that sort of thing, and build in such an organization so that the player can actually feel a sense of prestige in joining the class.

Yes, there are players who just like playing with the newest toys. It's probably wisest to indulge them in ways that won't throw the campaign off. Giving everyone the chance to make whatever funky high-level builds for a beer and pretzels cage match will probably blow off steam better than DM fiat will, and let you come back to your main game without such disruptive wanderings.

As to the original point of this thread, it really depends on the direction we want D&D to take. Some people want the base classes to be something you can keep taking indefinately, others want a more D20 modern approach where you're expected to class-dip over time. If your aim is the former, I agree that fighter and caster PRC's should actually have some cost attached. The question is where you can find a fair thing to take away in balance. If you see D&D going in the latter direction, it's all about "prestiging up" the more defined classes. D20 seems like it's testing these ideas to see which one fans end up preferring.

 

[tec-9-7]

Nevermind that you might be denying players the opportunity to play a character they want to play.

Some GMs flex their muscles forgetting they aren't the only one that need to enjoy the game. A shame, really.

IMO, the only reason players take any prestige class is to get some particular power, normally combat-slanted, that is unavailable otherwise. That, to use one of terrainmonkey's words is CHEESY. It is much like 3.0 players who would always throw in a level of Ranger to get the two-weapon fighting goodie, or the ones that plugged in a level of Bard into their Rogue so that they could get all the Perform-based abilities that came with Bard, or two levels of Fighter in their Barbarian to grab the front-load of bonus feats. I've yet to hear any credible game-centered (non-CHEESY) explaination as to why a player needs three base classes and three prestige classes. I don't even think it's possible to have a non-CHEESY rationale when the player comes out w/ a 1-30 level map of classes/prestige classes at character generation for a campaign beginning at level 1 - how in the heck would that character at game-age 17 even know about the Order of the Bow, let alone that they will need skills X, Y, & Z to qualify for it and that they will want 4 levels of it before they switch to Deep Woods Sniper? It is far too non-organic for my taste.

 

[Psion]

IMO, the only reason players take any prestige class is to get some particular power, normally combat-slanted, that is unavailable otherwise.

I don't particularly see why it is wrong to give players abilities that appeal to them; the game is fundamentally about empowerement. As GMs, I feel we should be facilitating players having a good time with characters that interest them (making obvious judgement calls regarding balance and fitting the campaign, naturally).

Prestige classes offer the added benefit of not allowing an ability without adopting the background of the class, which a good DM will use to drive character decisions and campaign involvement beyond the singular ability. That's a net plus AFAIAC.

Striving for an ability that interests you should not be judged to be automatically "cheesy", and I feel you do your players and your campaign a disservice by so hastily adopting such an adversarial attitude. The game works best when the DM and players work together to make the best of the game.

 

[tec-9-7]

Whatever. You play your way, I'll play mine. I'll be the Evil Heavy-Handed DM, and you can be the Cheese-Master...

 

[Piratecat]

Thanks pirate, i wasn't going to respond to that because... well, i'll be nice.

I wasn't speaking only to ARP! Please be aware that folks hold different opinions, and insulting them is never appropriate here. That's what you had done; best to avoid it in the future.

Thanks.

 

[Glyfair]

Agreed. Characters aren't boring - players are. Admittedly, I do say that after many years of gaming. In my younger days, I'd also probably have been slavering all over PrCs... That said tho, at this point in my life, I'm not really willing to put up w/ players who want some abortion-of-a-build in a thinly disguised attempt at munchkinism/powergaming, allegedly in the name of 'an interesting character'.

I think this says more about your experiences with players who want prestige classes than the prestige classes themselves.

Personally, I love the concept of prestige classes. However, I've never used one myself. All of them seem to have too high a cost for what they give. Yes, I've created NPC's and pregenerated high-level characters with them. That's because I'm designing them with that in mind.

Personally, I'd like every single religious order in my campaign to have at least one prestige class that's specific to the religion. This, IMO, is the best mechanical way to add flavor to religions (yes, having a good roleplayer playing a character is the best way).

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Ya know, I've just sort of wandered into this thread while under the influence of some pretty stout muscle relaxers, but let me toss a drug-hazed thought into the mix. Where Soulknives and PrC's are concerned, most of the "combat oriented" PrC's are easy enough to switch into. Where psionic PrC's are concerned, can't you just treat the prerequisite "manifester level x" as the Soulknife's class level? And in PrC's that give you "+1 manifester level" just give add the benefits you would've gained as a Soulknife (class ability-wise, but not the BAB, Save, or HP increase).

Man...that took forver to type...fingers...not...working.....

And that's precisely what's included in the DMG II, due in 2005.

And just how do you know this...hmmm?