Should prestige classes be better than base classes?

[Terath Ninir]

When 3e came out, I had played Final Fantasy I and the Shining Force games. Coming from that background, I assumed that prestige classes would be *better* than the base classes. Since you often have to "waste" feats and/or skill points on things you would never otherwise get (like Widen Spell or Perform/dance), I would think that you'd be getting something "better" for your efforts.

This is not a debate about what is -- the designers of 3.5 have explicitly stated that they're trying to balance the prestige classes against the base classes. This is a debate about what you, the ENWorlder, think things should be like.

As for me -- I'd like them to be better than the base classes. But I'm a dedicated computer RPG player, so that just comes naturally to me.

 

[BRP2]

I think most PrCs should be equal to normal classes, with a few exceptions.

 

[Felix]

This question is loaded: I could answer both "yes" or "no" while having one opinion depending about what I thought "more powerful" meant.

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.

So, no and yes.

Which were you looking for?

 

[Terath Ninir]

For a "yes", I'm thinking that the prestige class should be noticably better than a base class. Think the most unbalanced prestige classes of 3.0 -- like the ninja in the fighter book, or the blade dancer in OA. You don't sacrifice abilities to get others -- you've gotten specific feats, skills, and abilities to get into the class, and you get more power than you would have if you stayed in a base class.

 

[Nightfall]

Well depends. Should I be better than you Cyber?

*agrees with Felix* If this question were any more loaded, it would be an ICBM.

 

[Laman Stahros]

For a "yes", I'm thinking that the prestige class should be noticably better than a base class. Think the most unbalanced prestige classes of 3.0 -- like the ninja in the fighter book, or the blade dancer in OA. You don't sacrifice abilities to get others -- you've gotten specific feats, skills, and abilities to get into the class, and you get more power than you would have if you stayed in a base class.

Definitely not. If they are "better" as you describe, then no one will stay in a base class once they can get into a prestige class. Now, if the base classes were like the ones in D20 Modern (ie Fast Hero, Smart Hero, so on), then I think that the prestige classes would have to be "better" to some degree or another.

When 3e first was annouced, my understanding of PrCs was that they were specializations that a player could use to adjust their character to match (as close as possible, at least)what they wanted to play. I have not been disappointed by PrCs in the main.

 

[Nightfall]

Laman,

Not even with Halfling Outrider? Or Blood Magus?

 

[Terath Ninir]

All the best questions are loaded. They aren't worth discussing, otherwise.

I've found that the better prestige classes are better than being high level in a base class, anyway. Why not go all out and just have it be policy?

 

[Nightfall]

There's nothing loaded about these questions

"War, what is it good for?"

"Joy to the World or Joy to you and me?"

And finally "No new taxes?"

 

[RogueTom]

I voted other - I think the prestige class should be more focused than the base classes not necessarily better or worse. After voting I read the comments I tend to agree with them in that by focused I mean better at particular things or a particular group of things but balanced by loss of advancement in other general skills/abilities

Rogue Tom