Should prestige classes be better than base classes?

[Arkhandus]

I expect PrCs to be a little bit more powerful than a base class, but much more focused, and thus less versatile. Still, I don't like them being much better, and I don't think any of them should just be a superior version of a base class; there should always be a good reason to stick with a base class, even if it's a bit suboptimal.

I figure a few feats' worth of extra power, or 2 more skill points per level and a few more class skills, is the most a prestige class should get in terms of extra effectiveness.

I've primarily used and designed prestige classes to fit the elite ranks of certain organizations or nations, such as the Gilden Fusilier for elite marksmen in His Majesty's Royal Militia (as their nation has only a small standing army, and is served mainly by volunteers and the occasional conscript), or the Golemist for senior members of the Sterling Golemist Arcanaeum (a guild of dwarven mages, hidden since arcane magic is outlawed in the dwarven lands), or the Herald of the Dawn for Cindrea's most devoted and focused priests and priestesses (Cindrea being the sun goddess of my first homebrew setting). I occasionally use prestige classes as just masters of difficult or rare fighting arts, magicks, or powers.

I never just use/allow prestige classes as power upgrades or elite versions of base classes. There is always roleplaying involved and roleplaying requirements (not to mention actually finding out about the prestige class, locating the organization or a mentor, as appropriate, and convincing them you might be worth their time to test). Of course, I don't try and make it impossible or absurdly time-consuming, I just don't make it nearly so simple as "Next level I'm becoming a Dwarven Defender."

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Should a PrC that focuses on Tracking enemies be a better tracker than a straight Ranger? Yes. Does that mean the PrC is "more powerful"? Not necessarily; it depends upon the circumstances. One would expect that the loss of higher level ranger abilities and the sacrifice of gaining prereqs would mean that the straight ranger will have an advantage over the PrC when dealing with non-tracking issues. Once the PC starts tracking, the PrC is going to blow the doors off the ranger.

Ding, ding! TANSTAAFL.

In its niche, a PrC should be better than a base class, but in terms of overall power, classes should be more or less equal. That's why I hate arcane PrCs with easy entry requirements for sorcerers and full spellcasting proggression ... 'cause the sorcerer typically gives up nothing significant to enter in return for typically getting better abilities than the base class.

("course, I very nearly voted to dump all PrCs. I don't care for the mechanic, but I know others do, and properly used they aren't really a bad thing.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

As presently implemented, no. I was all geared up to say yes because I prefer the class systems from Final Fantasy and Shining Force - but those analogies don't hold for the current PrC design.

In most Final Fantasies - certainly in 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, your class is unchanging; mechanical customization is limited to subsystems (materia, espers, equipment, draw-outs, etc.) but the character's core schtick remains the same. Sabin will always be buff and have Blitz, even if he's worn magic-enhancing magicite from level 20 to level 99 and has a higher magic power than Terra. Cloud will always have Braver through Omnislash and equip swords, and Cait Sith will always have Slots and equip megaphones.

In Final Fantasy 5 and Tactics, where you do change characters' classes, the system works completely different than in D&D. Nor are the higher-level classes necessarily more powerful. Mime and Bard in FFT are awful compared even to Squire, and Chemist is by far the best healer when stacked up against White Mage - yet Chemist is a prereq for White Mage (and Mime and Bard) and Squire is for Mime. Monk and Knight, early FFT classes equivalent to D&D base classes, are usually the best for generic FFT characters right through the final battle - it helps to get certain abilities from later classes (OMGz0rz d1ppping!111), but then the character is better off going back to his, for lack of a better word, base class.

What's more, in an FF game, each character typically has something in the vicinity of 40-50 job levels (and a similar number of character levels) by the end of the game, and getting there takes maybe 40-60 hours. Compare that to potentially hundreds of hours in the 'weak levels' for a D&D character, who will probably never have more than 20 levels total!

In Shining Force, the promoted classes are indeed strictly better than the non-promoted classes... but every character promotes at level 10 (20 in SF2) with no other prerequisites, and there is no incentive NOT to promote. It's really no different than adding another 20 levels onto a 10 or 20 level base class.

 

[BRP2]

Personally I find the whole "Work hard to obtain a stronger PrC by getting useless or (worst) unrelated feats/skills" concept pretty dumb. The way I see it, as stated before, that PrCs are specialist of a field.

 

[the shmoopie]

I voted no. I think that the prestige classes should not be any better, nor any worse than the base classes. The PHB stated that the fighter should be the ultimate martial class, and I think that is awesome. Someone who takes fighter for 20+ lvls should have the most hulking beast on earth, someone who takes a prestige after six or seven lvls should not be as martially strong as the fighter, but should instead gain something new for the "loss" of raw strength.
However, I do not think that the prestige class should limit a player either. If I am giving up BAB or a bonus feat, or even extra HP I want that loss to go towards something better, more focused on what I had envisioned my PC to be.
I feel prestige classes should focus the PC, honing them down into something very specific, not give them more options then the generic classes, they are generic for a reason.

 

[el-remmen]

As presently implemented, no. I was all geared up to say yes because I prefer the class systems from Final Fantasy and Shining Force - but those analogies don't hold for the current PrC design.

In most Final Fantasies - <SNIP>

And again, I am reminded there is a whole other area of influence on table-top gaming that I totally cannot relate to.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No.

I like there to be tons of viable options for PCs (and NPCs etc.) *at every level*. Therefore, of course, all class options (for example) should be (close enough to) balanced, no matter when a player or DM might be contemplating them.

I can see no good reason why prestige classes should be more (or less) powerful than base classes. At all.

In fact, I've never heard anything even approaching a valid argument defending that design decision. I'm willing to hear one though. . . I guess.

 

[KrazyHades]

Well, I like many of the current prestige classes. I feel that a prestige class should be just that, prestigious, in a concentrated field, be that dragon-slaying or defending or the like. So, just as the base classes have their important strengths and weaknesses, the prestige classes should be, but with larger strengths and more vulnerable weaknesses.

 

[DragonLancer]

Personally I find the whole "Work hard to obtain a stronger PrC by getting useless or (worst) unrelated feats/skills" concept pretty dumb. The way I see it, as stated before, that PrCs are specialist of a field.

That's not what a PrC is meant to be though. They are meant to be campaign or setting specific orders or organisations, not a new specialist class or upgrade. If a player wants to be a member of the Royal Guard of Menhar thats a PrC, if they want to be a warrior who specialises in X attack form then play a fighter and take the appropriate feats.

 

[Vanuslux]

Powerwise, I think prestige classes should be balanced against base classes with the first level of the prestige class balanced against the lowest level of a base class they'd be able to enter it at.