Should prestige classes be better than base classes?

[Arkhandus]

For reference, in 3.0's Tome & Blood, which was the first or second supplement by WotC to include spellcasting prestige classes (not counting the DMG, as that's a core book, not a supplement):

15 prestige classes

5 of which get 100% spellcasting advancement

2 of which lose only 1 level of spellcasting advancement

2 of which get 60% spellcasting advancement

4 of which get 50% spellcasting advancement

2 of which get unusual and different spellcasting advancement
(1 of which is slightly weaker than 50%, the other of which only gets a handful more spells per day over 10 class levels of the spell levels it already knew spells from beforehand)

Of the 5 prestige classes in T&B that got full spellcasting advancement, 1 required a specific 4th-level divine spell as well as a specific 3rd-level arcane spell (and only improved spellcasting from one class), 1 was limited to wizards and gave up familiar advancement for a few extra languages and gradual spellpool access (and has some guild-related costs and benefits, mostly monetary costs and roleplaying/social benefits), 1 turns the caster into a less-than-sane wierdo that can't deal with people and is likely to attract unwanted/dangerous attention and may very well be consumed by horrors from beyond time and space if and when he eventually gets where he's fixin' to go, 1 is focused on strange candle-based spellcasting, and 1 requires at least 3 rogue levels beforehand (and thus effectively has to give up 3 levels of spellcasting progression anyway).


I'll mention a few others, from other books, and how they compare in 3.0/3.5 with base classes....

Order of the Bow Initiate: Gives up the use of their class features and several of their previous feats if their bow is broken or stolen, and in melee they are effectively a pure fighter but with no bonus feats (and probably not a great magic melee weapon). Their ranged sneak attacks and point blank shot feat are also useless beyond 30 feet, so enemies can still be effectively positioned outside their most useful ranges. They also need a high Wisdom if they want to make the most of the prestige class, though it's only for one class feature and thus unnecessary for most. A fighter or ranger is more versatile and only at a minor disadvantage in ranged combat against an OotBI, unless they get real close without simply starting a grapple and beating down the Initiate up close and personal. The fighter or ranger will still be more effective in melee and have more feats or class features that aren't limited to archery.

The Ghostwalker is cool, but often impractical, and only rarely useful.

The Fist of Hextor is a fighter who gains no bonus feats and instead gets an occasional, minor Strength boost for the length of a very short battle (or an average battle at upper levels in the class), along with a minor boost to one attack roll or damage roll each round, as well as a short-range fear-inducing ability; with annoying skill requirements and a reliance on Charisma for their fear ability.

......out of time for the moment it looks like, have to go to work.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

TANSTAAFL comes from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. I could be a Heinlein scholar if I had any desire to be such.

That acronym is so underused in society today.

<- break ->

What, pray tell, is a gish, anyway? A githyanki with a lisp? I've been playing D&D for 25 years and have just now noticed the term popping up in threads around here, without definition.

Confoozled,

Olgar.

Edit: Google to the rescue. Apparently, a gish is either:

- A ball of tar
- An album by Smashing Pumpkins (go Wikipedia!)
- A githyanki fighter/wizard (with a lisp). My Fiend Folio-fu let me down, here.

Which still doesn't explain the use of the term as regards "builds" or prestige classes.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Gish is a term that githyanki (zerai?) use to describe their fighter/wizard warriors.

It's been co-opted (genericized?) to also mean any sort of warrior / mage multiclass / theme arrangement.

 

[Psion]

What, pray tell, is a gish, anyway? A githyanki with a lisp?

The term from the 1e FF (where they originally appeared) for a Gith fighter-mage.

EDIT: i.e., what Patryn said.

 

[Nifft]

... much as the Bard is "weaker", a common subjective appraisal of the generalist, in general.

This is, IMHO, the crux of the matter.

Generalists are weaker because they can do more things, but are less effective doing them. Since you can only do one thing in a given "action" (typically a combat round), those with fewer but stronger options tend to "win".

Generalists are more fun IMHO. But that's because they demand creativity.

Power does not demand creativity. If you have one trick that always works, you will always use that same trick. To do otherwise would be irrational (in the economic sense of the term).

So, if we agree that PrCs allow specialization, we must also agree that they are stronger. (It's my belief that the more specialization, the less fun, but that's my play style.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Gish is a term that githyanki (zerai?) use to describe their fighter/wizard warriors.

It's been co-opted (genericized?) to also mean any sort of warrior / mage multiclass / theme arrangement.

How... droll. Stupid term.

I hereby resolve to boycott any such usage.

 

[el-remmen]

The problem with statements of what prestige classes *should* be is that all of them, if you use the right evidence, are *true*. Game design at WotC has been run by numerous different people during 3e and even at a single time, different designers have had different ideas of what a PrC should be.

Some designers clearly follow the specialist ideal -- you give up something to get something else. The mystic theurge would fit in that category; you get a hella lot of spells, but the hp, BAB, and turn undead hit for your cleric abilities is no small sacrifice.

Others clearly follow the organization model, especially in Forgotten Realms supplements. If you want to use the Harper classes in another setting, you're going to have to put in the Harper organization or something like it.

And, though it's a smaller section in 3.5 than it was in 3.0, there's the set of designers that clearly see PrC as I do -- as wahoo power ups. The Radiant Munchkin of Pelor is solidly in that category -- you get everything a cleric does, at the sacrifice of (on average) 1 hp per level.

So you can find evidence to support any view of PrC, and they're all right, since so many people are involved in designing them, even in just the WotC materials.

You just demonstrated why choice is a good thing!

Different people have different ideas of what a PrC should be - thankfully different PrCs out there appeal to all those different groups - so all you need to do as DM is figure out which ones you will allow for theme and power level of your game and you are good to go. . .

So I guess the answer to: Should prestige classes be better than base classes?

Is: If you want them to be. ..

 

[Psion]

So I guess the answer to: Should prestige classes be better than base classes?

Is: If you want them to be. ..

No way! We all know that if the game does not support what I personally want, it should be stricken from the game!

 

[Celebrim]

This is, IMHO, the crux of the matter.

Generalists are weaker because they can do more things, but are less effective doing them. Since you can only do one thing in a given "action" (typically a combat round), those with fewer but stronger options tend to "win".

Generalists are more fun IMHO. But that's because they demand creativity.

Power does not demand creativity. If you have one trick that always works, you will always use that same trick. To do otherwise would be irrational (in the economic sense of the term).

So, if we agree that PrCs allow specialization, we must also agree that they are stronger. (It's my belief that the more specialization, the less fun, but that's my play style.)

Cheers, -- N

QFT

 

[Felix]

Well, to begin with, what I actually thought you were originally referring to was spellcasting-focused PrCs *wherein* you must give up more than three levels of spellcasting, not *wherein and/or for which*. My mistake, arguably. Either way, do you honestly believe that - for example - a rogue/caster hybrid shouldn't have to give up any spellcasting levels? Or even, less than the arcane trickster demands?

The eldritch knight - should they not, either?

And so on. Because, to me, these PrCs should have to give up something to gain the exatrordinary amounts of things they do. In fact, more than they must at present. As I have said before.

A casting PC that winds up at level 20 without 20 spellcasting levels gives up power. If they give up 3 or more, that is a significant loss of power relative to base-class casters. It is even more significant for the Arcane Trickster, for example, that the spellcasting levels are lost in their first 8 levels, and not spread out through the PrC progression. This means they must eat a 3-level loss of spells early in their career and they will never be able to make it up. So the PrC better darn well provide something of worth.

Nor should eldrich knights; they're still by and large going to be staying out of melee - and they're supposed to be a fighter/wizard. Thank goodness they will eventually get access to Transmutation spells that will make up for their utter inability to wear armor and cast.

What, next you will tell me that d4 HD for a purely spellcasting PrC is a balancing factor, a "weakness". . .? Nope, I don't buy this line.

It is when you're a fighter/mage. A pure fighter is going to go to work on you in melee, and a pure caster is going to stomp your spells. Unless you have something like the Eldrich Knight that allows some confluence of the two disciplines.

Really. Then why print them at all, as has been done throughout various splatbooks and elsewhere? If they are so underpowered, perhaps it's that the gish archetype is itself "weaker", much as the Bard is "weaker", a common subjective appraisal of the generalist, in general.

Why print them? Because people like to play the fighting wizard?

And yes, the gish does suffer similar problems to the bard, which are exacerbated in the 3e multiclassing system. In 2e, because of the non-linear level progressions, a fighter/mage was not 1/2 character level fighter and 1/2 character level wizard; a 7/8 gish would be roughly equate in XP terms to a level 10 single-classed character.

Not that 2e multiclassing was without its problems; I prefer 3e much more. But the point being that 2e multiclassing allowed for viable gish builds wheras 3e must have PrCs to account for the non-linear power progression in a linear XP regime.

As far as the bard is concerned, if the campaign is a intrigue-heavy and NPC-interaction based, the bard will shine brightly. This is not always going to be the case, and in a combat-oriented campaign, the bard will suffer terribly, unless he is happy to sit back, help a little, and boost his allies and make them better. And so he is "weaker" because his power manifests through others.

It would help if you took the time to read that to which you are responding. I very specifically referred to *having more overall power*. I fail to see how that could reasonably have been misinterpreted as meaning "better at their specialty".

Because you earlier mentioned (at least I do believe it was you) this progression:

Specialty in a Niche --> Increased Power in Niche --> Increase in PC Involvement in Niche Circumstances --> Increased Overall Effectiveness

I read that to which I responded, and I read between the lines as well. If a PrC's 1st level ability is Do Everything Better Than Everyone Else, then the PrC is overpowered. This is not often the case. The only way most PrCs will achieve *having more overall power* is not by having more game-mechanical power, but rather by applying their specialized power more often. The two are not the same thing.

For example: The Bloodhound (CAdv) is a ranger-based PrC and is very good at tracking. All of its abilities have to do with tracking someone down and being mean to them. If a PC takes this class, you can be sure that he will want to track people down. This does not mean that he is overpowered compared to a single-classed ranger. He's just better at tracking. If you have one of each in a party, and all they do is muck about tracking people, the ranger will feel outclassed. You might think it's the PrC's problem. And then you run head on into a gang of Favored Enemies +6 and the ranger goes to town on them. Then maybe you think the PrC might not be the problem, but rather the campaign and its challenges that skew your perception.

Actually, I love PrCs. They were (IMO) a great idea, and I like many of the concepts, and in fact many of the game mechanic designs that I've encountered and - post-tinkering - used. That people find what to them appear to be balance issues in D&D should - I'd have thought - come as no surprise to almost any player or DM. After all, I am hardly the only person to have expressed such a view, IRL or on forums - wherever.

Of course balance issues are terribly subjective; the campaigns in which these issues take place have more effect upon the opinions of any particular person than any other factor, including the mechancis of the PrC itself. If you take an artificer PrC and plop him into a low magic-item campaign, he'll break the bank by raising cash from magic item sales. A lone psion in a "psionics are different" campaign will have a similar effect, with no mage being able to counter or detect his manifestations.

In absence of the "Do Everything Better Than Everyone Else" ability, it is the campaign that paints the PrC in a good or poor light.

Uh, I was only kidding. Hence the smiley that I chose. It was actually an unintended phrasing at first, then I decided to keep it, but make it clear that I was just being a bit daft. Or something. Eh, never mind. I meant no offense by it, suffice to say.

My apologies, then. Celebrim posted a PrC lover/heroin addict analogy earlier to which I took offense, and your "if that's what you like, more power to you, no pun intended" struck a nerve.