Should prestige classes be better than base classes?

[Felix]

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

Generalists demand creativity in that they must choose which moderately-powered ability can be applied to overcome an obstacle.

Specialists demand creativity in that they must figure out how thier speciality may assist in overcoming an obstacle.

It is hardly the case that specialists, or rather, the players of specialists, are more or less creative; it is interaction of player and obstacle that produces creativity, not the build.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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

No, that is not - and also, was never - my perspective.

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.

I disagree, as I've already said. What you see in the majority of PrCs is not what I see. And perhaps, that is all there ever was to all of this.

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.

No worries at all.


Here's a breakdown of where I *do* happen to be at with the PrC in 3e, for once and for all:

* Caters to a concept or niche that base classes, taken singly or in combination, do not = good.

* Allows greater specialisation than that offered by base classes, but at appropriate cost = good.

* Is significantly greater, or lesser, in overall power than relevant base class configurations = bad.


Therefore it follows that I find most PrCs in need of fixing - something I don't mind doing, incidentally - given that (as I've said) I have found most of them to be mechanically overpowered, in terms of what I demand of them (see the first two points above).

So, in the end, I am in agreement on what PrCs *should* be. Just not on what they tend to *be*. Agree to disagree, then?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I'm pretty sure this opinion has surfaced in the past, but ...

I think that Prestige Classes should balance with the regular classes. If not, then your game almost has to fragment into an all PrC party or a no PrC party. Because if all PrCs are better then a player who makes a straight character with no PrCs is going to have a hard time keeping up. Likewise, a player who takes a PrC in a party where nobody else does is going to shine.

Now, I don't have a problem with a PrC taking a niche and refining it and making a character better at that niche. But by definition that means that they should have a niche of weakness, too.

For example, Take a person who loves all of history. They study every aspect of every human culture. Because they are so diversified, they may not be great at any one thing. But they can tell you about the basics of any culture on the earth.

Then, take a person who is getting a Ph.D. in history. They have to chose a culture, then choose a time period within that culture, and then choose a specifc aspect within that time operiod within that culture. So, a person with a Ph.D. might be able to tell you tons of stuff about ancient Egyptian burial practices from the reign of Ramses ... but they couldn't tell you much at all about the development of gunpowder in the far east.

I don't mind specialized, but it should be balanced. I don't like PrCs that don't take as much as they give.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Wow, google did me right found a great reply in a thread I forgot I posted in

You think GURPS is balanced? It's far easier to twink and min/max in GURPS than it is in D&D, which I would have thought everyone who had played GURPS would know.

Yes, you are right, there is a different kind of imbalance deeply inherent in GURPS. I have played a lot of GURPS, so I was just using as my canonical example of a point system. I think I should have left balance out of it. The unbalancing is in everything due to the arms-race reality of game publishing.

Kits were an attempt to add flexibility to an inflexible system. The real analogy with kits between 2E and 3E is with feats and skills. Kits were 2E feats. In many ways, PrC's encourage a reduction in flexibility, because they have more limited choices than a base class (in fact, thats IMO the only thing you in practice sacrifice to take a PrC). It results in more characters having the same build, which is the opposite of the way feats take the game (fewer characters have the same build).

Kits are not equivalent to feats and skills. Kits were archetype defining and did not add any post-creation flexibility. They were just additional inflexible options. Skill and Powers iis waht came closest, but I was playing Magic and Werewolf during that.

My biggest beef with PrCs are the Prerequisite Feat and skil requirements. "I never learned to break weapons with my sword. Guess I can't turn my blackened ex-paladin soul over to darkness."