Should the Bard, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger be Prestige Classes?

[Mac Callum]

Hmmmm … No.

A druid is fundamentally different from a Cleric. He’s not some god-fearing, steel armor wearing, heavy mace wielding dude who suddenly has a revelation that it’s really the forces of nature which rule the roost: A Druid never falls for that ‘God’ crap in the first place.

The same is true of the Bard, the Sorcerer, and for my mind, the Swashbuckler and more. They are fundamentally different classes from “Fighter” and “Spell-guy.” A Swashbuckler never learned to wear heavy armor and fight with greataxes in the first place. He did other things.

I think Prestige Classes have their place … but it’s a narrower one than most publishers seem to think. I think they’re great for secret societies and specialized skill-sets within a Core Class (like the Order of the Bow Initiate or the Archmage), but I really don’t like the Prestige Classes that are just bad imitations of a genuine Core Class (like a Prestige Druid would be).

 

[drothgery]

If one wanted to extend this to ultimate generalities, all one needs are spell-guy, skill-guy, and fight-guy (or gal). I understand that Unearthed Arcana actually has done this in variant rules. It might be worth checking out, if you have a bookstore handy that allows browsing.

It doesn't quite work in D&D, because of the arcane/divine split (the homebrew "d20 Fantasy" I work on off-and-on has three core classes, with spell-guy based on the d20 Wheel of Time initiate). You could probably find room for "funky ability guy" in there, too.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

As things stand, I'm happy with them as core classes, though I can see making the bard and the paladin prestige classes without violating concept.

If core classes were a little looser and more customizable, then I would make them prestige classes. But then you get into the can of worms - how generic is too generic to be D&D?

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

They could be prestige classes but without them I feel a lot of variety is lost. If it works for a certain type of game, great. But going by the RAW they're fine as they are.

 

[Davelozzi]

I think paladins should be a prestige class (and they are in my game).

Same for spellcasting rangers, though I have no problem with a non-magical woodsman/tracker type starting at first level. I guess the same logic could apply to a spell-casting bard vs. a "musical rogue" as you called him, though frankly, I don't care enough about bards either way to bother with them.

Druid should be a regular class, for reasons outlined by Mac Callum above.

 

[reanjr]

The DMG says something about Prestige Classes needing to be fairly specific and Classes needing to be more general. Well . . . I was just thinking the other day that the Bard, Druid, Paladin and Ranger were reasonably specific and could possibly be treated as Prestige Classes.

Coz if you think about it, a Bard is really just a musical Rogue, a Druid is just a nature Cleric, a Paladin is just a Lawful Good Fighter, and a Ranger is an outdoor's Fighter. Yeah sure, they've all got special powers that make them unique, but couldn't these just be picked up in a Prestige Class?

I don't know, I don't like to tamper too much with the rules.

The Paladin is ripe for prestige. The Ranger and Druid I can see done as prestige classes. The Bard I'm not so sure of. They are not really focused. They have a theme (performance, which doesn't necessarily indicate singing; a singing class I'd say might be good for prestige) but they are too general in what they can do (a cross between a rogue and sorcerer).

 

[diaglo]

Turn Undead Edition!!!

rolls 2d6 and consults the chart


[dice=2]6[/dice]

 

[Mystery Man]

<---Takes a stand.

No.

 

[mmadsen]

I think the Paladin and Ranger were two perfect opportunities to introduce Prestige Classes -- not for the Paladin and Ranger, per se, but for the high-level, spellcasting Paladin and Ranger. A low-level Paladin is a Fighter with some Holy Feats; a high-level Paladin picks up Cleric-like spellcasting. A low-level Ranger is a Wilderness Rogue; a high-level Ranger picks up Druid-like spellcasting

 

[Kalendraf]

As written, they should remain normal classes. However, if I were going to change things up, I would make the Paladin become a PrC, but keep the others as normal classes.

For the Paladin PrC requirements, I'd probably make it require a minimum of 1st level divine spellcasting ability, and likely a certain BAB (+4 or so) before entering the class in addition to LG alignment. Easiest route into the class would probably something like a Fighter/Cleric. The PrC would have d10 for Hit Die, and the fighter BAB progression. The PrC would grant the normal paladin abilities (smite, divine grace, lay on hands, etc) in the first few levels of the class. I would also have the PrC levels add spellcasting & turning that advances their current abilities at a rate of maybe +1 per 2 levels. There may already be a PrC that is somewhat similar to this that could easily be used as a model for what I envision here.