D&D 5E Pros and Cons of Kits, Prestige classes and Paragon paths. How 5e should handle it?

[Janaxstrus]

I like kits better than prestige classes, especially if you allow folks or the DM can attach a kit at a level past first. As others have said, some were good, some were overpowered and most were "blah". If they could be fixed so they are flavorful, with some supportive mechanics, but not be unbalancing, that'd definitely be what I want.

Prestige classes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies fed the CharOps boards, and I for one, would like to see those boards burned to the ground. Get character advancement back to being organic, instead of being "builds".

So people who don't play like you are doing it wrong? Gotcha.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with character optimization. I would rather play a game with optimizers than one where people think the game can only be played 1 way.

 

[KidSnide]

I don't really think either one of those are all that balanced. Picking a paragon path is hard work. Paragon Path grades vary between mildly useful and wildly powerful, and that's after pulling out all the weeds that flat out don't work for you and stuff everyone wrinkles their nose at. What's worse, paragon paths also have prerequisites, making it so some classes (or even builds within a class) simply have better choices than others. If you're a Valor Bard, when you hit level 11, you get a PP that makes other bard builds jealous.

Not only did paragon paths have greatly differing levels of effectiveness, but fluff and crunch were often barely connected. I like 4e a lot, but PPs could easily be 4e's most finicky, hard-to-choose and disassociated set of mechanics.

-KS

 

[Sunseeker]

Not only did paragon paths have greatly differing levels of effectiveness, but fluff and crunch were often barely connected. I like 4e a lot, but PPs could easily be 4e's most finicky, hard-to-choose and disassociated set of mechanics.

-KS

Really? I always found it comparatively easy to pick a PP compared to 3e's PC's.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Its an unfortunate consequence. 4e was the most superbly balanced RPG there ever was, yet still the char opp boards were cramped (Is that self contradictory?). However much you fine tooth comb a system for balance, the more choice you get for mechanical definition, the more certain builds end up floating to the top.
.

But actually how overpowered were those builds? Yes, they were better than other builds, but I did not see them as being as overpowered as some in 3.x (Pun-pun, anyone?)

There will always be better builds, but if they are only 10-20% better, that is awesome. In 3.x some were 100% or more better.

4E also did a good job of making it really hard to make a poor character.

 

[BobTheNob]

So people who don't play like you are doing it wrong? Gotcha.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with character optimization. I would rather play a game with optimizers than one where people think the game can only be played 1 way.

I read the post you based this response on and I didnt get the impression he was saying the game could be played one way at all, in fact whta he said was that he wanted "organic". Actually sounds like a rather noble goal IMO.

Pretty rough response there.

 

[BobTheNob]

But actually how overpowered were those builds? Yes, they were better than other builds, but I did not see them as being as overpowered as some in 3.x (Pun-pun, anyone?)

There will always be better builds, but if they are only 10-20% better, that is awesome. In 3.x some were 100% or more better.

4E also did a good job of making it really hard to make a poor character.

I will concede this point. 4e wasnt hyper broken...except for the "Twin Striking half-elf Avenger Daggermaster". Still send shivers up my spine every time I think of it...(and at least they recognised and sealed the hole)

I try to keep my 4e posts downtoned. I do genuinely think it was a good version and the balance was well done.

 

[Mengu]

4E also did a good job of making it really hard to make a poor character.

I'd agree with you back when there were very few 4e resources out. And perhaps at low levels this is still true, but at high levels, it's very easy to go with a concept, make logical looking or cool sounding choices, and end up performing significantly worse than a more optimized character that's taking advantage of the full breadth of options.

I've seen this happen with players who just flip open a random book to make their choices. Fortunately we can give them guidance in the group to bring them up to par, which isn't hard, but at this point, I think it's pretty easy to make a poor character.

 

[am181d]

I prefer Alternate Class Features as they were implemented at the tail end of 3.5, and Pathfinder's archetypes.

 

[stevelabny]

I really liked the concept of Prestige Classes in 3e. What confuses me is that most people seem perfectly willing to handwave the roleplaying pre-requisites but get hung up on the statistical prereqisites.

I would much rather maintain the prereq of "to be Purple Sword of Pelor you must first meet the order, and prove your worth though trials of faith and combat." rather than "BAB +6, Combat Casting, Power Attack, Cleave" . It makes no sense that anyone with those stats can just suddenly be a Purple Sword of Pelor. It makes much more sense that if the Purple Swords met a holy individual with a shared mindset, they would let him in to their group as long as he was competent.

Also, why not do things like have multiple prereq options. To be an Awesome Archer of Awesomeness, you need Dex 18 OR Dex 16+ Point Blank Shot OR Dex 13 + Precise Shot + BAB +6.

Putting emphasis more on the roleplaying aspects and less on the stats or less on specific build-from-level-one stats makes Prestige Classes more fun and viable. As a player, I'd much rather meet an interesting new Prestige Class faction mid-campaign and decide to join up with them, then to have to plan out my exact build from day 1. Which is also why I don't like the idea of kit selection at creation. And as a DM, I'd much prefer to look at a player's preferred future build, and if I think his character optimization will break party balance, be able to say "Nope, no Purple Swords in my campaign. However, there is a similar group called the Orange Blades... and then provide him with a tweaked PrC"

The "problem" with optimization isn't that its "the wrongbad way to play" The problem is that it has to be a group-choice much like high-fantasy or low-fantasy, scifi or fantasy, smoking or non-smoking, homebrew or Forgotten Realms or other, etc etc. It rarely rarely works when you have one PC fully optimized and another PC that is more of a style over substance, non-optimized build.

So yeah, I much prefer the idea of PCs being able to join specialized factions that have their own set of benefits and drawbacks at any time they share mindsets.

 

[GreyICE]

I like kits better than prestige classes, especially if you allow folks or the DM can attach a kit at a level past first. As others have said, some were good, some were overpowered and most were "blah". If they could be fixed so they are flavorful, with some supportive mechanics, but not be unbalancing, that'd definitely be what I want.

Prestige classes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies fed the CharOps boards, and I for one, would like to see those boards burned to the ground. Get character advancement back to being organic, instead of being "builds".

"THEY'RE PLAYING THE MAKE BELIEVE FANTASY GAME WRONG!"

I'm sorry that's what I hear every time I read these sorts of screeds.