D&D 5E So what happened to like, the PrCs/Paragon classes and the multi-class classes?

[Li Shenron]

I think it's really unfair to blame "players" for "abusing" PrCs in 3E. The designers are largely at fault here, particularly whoever was really "in charge" of 3E, for not clearly delineating what PrCs were for, and/or coming up with a pretty terrible/inconsistent idea, and then leaning on that idea to support a host of character types. The power levels of and entry requirements for PrCs were particularly horrifically inconsistent, where you had many PrCs straight-up better than any similar normal class or class combo of the same span of levels, but others were complete traps, and the entry requirements had no reliable relationship to the power or the class or even how rare it was intended to be (and in some cases no discernible connection to the theme of the class!).

IIRC the 3e PrCl were invented by Monte Cook. He was the main responsible for the DMG where those were presented anyway, he could have been clearer in the book about their usage. OTOH he had often said (maybe not in the book tho) that the DMG PrCl were supposed to be examples, because the whole PrCl concept was originally an idea for DMs to design their own, and that's why there are only 6 of them in the 3.0 DMG.

The DMG did not presented it as a hard-coded system, with rules for creating "balanced" requirements and benefits. Maybe they thought it would have been too hard and restrictive, but maybe also because they weren't thinking PrCls would have become immediately a major feature of 3e. In fact, IMHO had they imagined that, they could have probably put PrCl in the PHB (just like they're doing in 5e with subclasses).

Part of the fault was clearly also the editors' or whoever decided to milk the PrCl cow in supplements. Already in the early splatbooks, PrCls were the main 'meat' of the books in terms of page count. Desire to fill many books with them, possibly coupled with a lingering idea that "they are just examples anyway" could be the reason for rushed design.

And part of the fault is no doubt the players'. Soon it was the players who demanded more and more PrCls, just by rewarding WotC with buying all those books of PrCls.

In real terms, it's hard for me to tell how widespread the problem was, because personally I have only played TT in a few gaming groups, and we never had any player stacking PrCls, but clearly this is not statistically representative. OTOH on PbP games I noticed a more common habit of creating "combos" with PrCls. Where this was really visible, was in online forums, but who knows if those people were ever actually playing those PCs at home, or were instead just playing their own game of combos in online forums? Whatever the truth, they did spread the feeling, that players everywhere were like that, and probably a lot of people who (like me) had no problems at home, still believed that the "world outside" was ravaged by mad PrCl min-maxers.

So overall it's a bit of everybody's fault in the community. Whether PrCls were really widely abused or not, what has remained today is this difficulty to talk about the whole idea of PrCls, without people immediately get a rash thinking it will inevitably be abused if done in a new edition.

 

[Li Shenron]

^^ I will add to that, there is still an ambiguity in how much the rules are supposed to be "rigid" or "flexible". This may not be possible to resolve, because there are always gamers who see the rules/materials as tools to adapt to their preferences vs gamers who see the rules/materials as untouchable.

 

[Grazzt]

I think it's really unfair to blame "players" for "abusing" PrCs in 3E. The designers are largely at fault here, particularly whoever was really "in charge" of 3E, for not clearly delineating what PrCs were for

Agreed. Not really the player's fault. Designer's maybe. But as DM, just say no. You don't want a particular PrC in your campaign, ban it. Done. No abuse by anyone then.

As for what they are/were for, wasn't the original intent to be like a class you gained when you joined some campaign-specific organization? Like your fighter joins "The Brothers of the Crimson Rose", so he gets levels in that PrC. Or your rogue joins the "Walkers at the Edge of the World", so he gets levels in that PrC. Or you join the local assassin's guild...take levels in the assassin PrC.

 

[Li Shenron]

Agreed. Not really the player's fault. Designer's maybe. But as DM, just say no. You don't want a particular PrC in your campaign, ban it. Done. No abuse by anyone then.

As for what they are/were for, wasn't the original intent to be like a class you gained when you joined some campaign-specific organization? Like your fighter joins "The Brothers of the Crimson Rose", so he gets levels in that PrC. Or your rogue joins the "Walkers at the Edge of the World", so he gets levels in that PrC. Or you join the local assassin's guild...take levels in the assassin PrC.

Sure, but if the DM runs a game focused on action (exploration & combat encounter), all that stuff is relegated to the background, and joining a group becomes a matter of asking "(during downtime) may I join group X?"

As I said above, I've never encountered abuses in our games. I have no idea if those players who used to storm online forums asking how to optimize their "Wizard 5/Elemental Master 3/Archblaster 2/Ultracool specialist 1/Wielder of the turbostaff 2/Metabetamage 1/etc 3/etc 2/etc 1" ever actually played that at all, or were just having fun "building". Especially since broken combos typically tended to be presented at outrageously high level already, which raises further suspicions since most people avoided playing 3e beyond a certain level.

 

[Grazzt]

As I said above, I've never encountered abuses in our games. I have no idea if those players who used to storm online forums asking how to optimize their "Wizard 5/Elemental Master 3/Archblaster 2/Ultracool specialist 1/Wielder of the turbostaff 2/Metabetamage 1/etc 3/etc 2/etc 1" ever actually played that at all, or were just having fun "building". Especially since broken combos typically tended to be presented at outrageously high level already, which raises further suspicions since most people avoided playing 3e beyond a certain level.

Yep. Same here. I never saw it in my games either. Because #1 I would've squashed it if'd seen it, and #2 the people I play with weren't really interested in optimizing and squeezing that extra +1 to some roll out of wherever they could.

And no idea on if people actually played that or if it was just building to be building. Honestly when I stumbled into a thread that mentioned anything like that, I bailed. No interest in your 20 class PC and his stuff.

 

[Boarstorm]

Regarding CharOp builds: I think for most people they were thought experiments. For the rest, they were a road map.

 

[Greg K]

I think it's really unfair to blame "players" for "abusing" PrCs in 3E. The designers are largely at fault here, particularly whoever was really "in charge" of 3E, for not clearly delineating what PrCs were for.

I disagree that they they did not delineate what they were for. The 3.0 DMG and several Dragon articles (which are considered 100% official) were very explicit that they were optional rules under DM purview and designed to help define the campaign setting.

"Allowing PCs access to prestige classes is purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. Even though a few examples can be found below, prestige classes are idiosyncratic to each campaign and DMs may choose to not allow them or to use them only for NPCs.
Dungeon Masters should use Prestige classes as a tool for world building as well as a reward for achieving high level. They set characters in the milieu and put them in the context of the world"
(3.0 Dungeon Masters Guide p.27)

"Use prestige classes to establish and develop the following themes in your campaign"

• Racial Distinctions
• Cultural Distinctions
• Religious Orders
• Guild or Group Membership

(3.0 Dungeon Masters Guide p.27)
​

From Class Acts: Creating your Own Prestige Classes (Dragon 274):

"Prestige Classes allow DMs to create campaign-specific, exclusive role and positions as classes" (P.46).

"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM" (p.46)

"Why Create a Prestige Class? There are four basic reasons why you should create prestige classes for your campaign."

1. "Give'em What they Want" (p.46): The character sacrifices some aspects for improved abilities
2. "Define Your Organizations" (p.46)
3. "Describe your Cultures"
   
   "Like organizations, races and cultures can benefit from having specific rules to showcase their abilities" (p.47)
   
   "While its fine to say things like 'elves operate in the woods' or 'gnomes are tricky', such statements are always more powerful if there are rules to back them up." (p.47)
   
   "Cultures can benefit from prestige classes most of all. There are no D&D game rules for how the people from the Southern Kingdom in your campaign differ from the folkof the Direwood Forest. With prestige classes, you can define how the southern spear-dancers hae a completely different fighting style from that of the hardy no-nonsense Direwood rangers." (p.47)​
4. "Make Lame Options Exciting" (p.47)

"Use prestige classes as a tools to individualize and invigorate your campaign" (p.48).
​

"Campaigning with Class: Customizing your Campaign with Prestige Classes (Dragon 293) is a great article for DMs about choosing PrCs appropriate for their campaign(for those inclined to use PrCs). It looks at arcane casters, combat specialists, divine casters and skill specialists. Also included are eight campaign themes with suggested PrCs for each and a checklist to help DMs determine if a PrC is campaign appropriate or should be rejected. Some quotes from the article:

"If you want to make your campaign more unique, try creating a custom list of prestige classes in your game (p.66)

"Remember that your're not simply checking whether or not a character in your world would like to have the powers of the prestige class; you're evaluating whether or not the idea is something you want to incorporate into your world (p.67)

"Inform Your Players

When you've finished your list, share it with your players. Not only does this help them plan their character's careers, but it gives them a greater understanding of the various classes' places in your world and a better understanding of the world as a whole" (p.69). However, it also advises to keep secret those PrCs that players should not be aware. Suggested reasons include a villain unique PrC, PrCs from lands unfamiliar to the players, and secret organizations​

​

EDIT: Now, personally, I didn't care for PrCs as implemented. In most instances, I think that the racial, cultural and organizational influences of PrCs should have been reflected in characters from the start. I think that instead of PrCs, splat books should have been focused on tailoring starting class lists by race and/or culture as well as expanding upon class variants (customizing a character 3.0 PHB/p. 94 and 3.5 PHB/p.110), tailored spell lists (DMG variant), and skill swapping (Cityscape web enhancement) to reflect those influences on the starting character's background and training influences.

PrCs could still have a place for certain secret societies and prestige societies in a culture or higher level memberships in an organization, but they are in my opinion, a poor way to reflect the influence of race, culture, and organizational training by having a character wait several levels to show this differentiation.

 

[1of3]

I disagree that they they did not delineate what they were for. The 3.0 DMG and several Dragon articles (which are considered 100% official) were very explicit that they were optional rules under DM purview and designed to help define the campaign setting.

The problem is: Those are only words, not design.

The standard method of game design is making people do what you want them to, by making them "win" in the process.

If you want people to make their own prestige classes, offer a procedure to do so. Not finished results, except for an example or two. On the other hand, by rolling out lots of prestige classes that offer bonuses, you make people "win" by using and perusing them.

That got even worse because players were not able to find a common system by reading the official PrCs, because there was none. Therefore there was no way to reverse engineer them. Therefore in the minds of the community those official PrCs did not became examples, but artifacts that you would better not mess with.

It's much easier with DDN subclasses. I can write you new subclasses, no problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree that they they did not delineate what they were for. The 3.0 DMG and several Dragon articles (which are considered 100% official) were very explicit that they were optional rules under DM purview and designed to help define the campaign setting.

Words are wind, John Snow.

The problem is: Those are only words, not design.

Ah, yes, precisely.

Further, Greg, anything in Dragon is seen by a small minority of D&D DMs. I mean, how many copies of 3E sold compared to how many copies of Dragon 274 or 293 or the like?

The DMG example is particularly unfortunate, even awful, because they do indeed say that, and then, when they actually show us some PrCs, most or all of them are literally generic. Assassin, for example, for god's sake. They tell us PrCs are esoteric and campaign specific, then they give us a classic 1E *class* as a PrC. Arcane Archer is another - utterly generic. Dwarven Defender - utterly generic. I could go on. As I remember, every single PrC in the DMG is generic, and could fit into any campaign.

It's totally classic bad game design - say the rules are for one thing, then demonstrate, at length, that they're for another - people will remember the examples, not the preamble. It was clear from splats and so on that WotC did not intend for DMs and players to *actually* not use PrCs except a few "culturally appropriate" ones, either.

Of course even fixing that leaves the biggest problem - wild and totally uneven power which is totally unrelated to how rare or hard to get into the PrC is (indeed on the contrary, many of the hardest-to-get-into PrCs are very weak).

EDIT: Now, personally, I didn't care for PrCs as implemented. In most instances, I think that the racial, cultural and organizational influences of PrCs should have been reflected in characters from the start. I think that instead of PrCs, splat books should have been focused on tailoring starting class lists by race and/or culture as well as expanding upon class variants (customizing a character 3.0 PHB/p. 94 and 3.5 PHB/p.110), tailored spell lists (DMG variant), and skill swapping (Cityscape web enhancement) to reflect those influences on the starting character's background and training influences.

Your proposed replacement doesn't make much sense to me, because race/cultural influences would be strongest at level 1. Basically you're proposing replacing PrCs with Kits, I guess. Well, Kits were less problematic, there is that. Not everyone wants their PC defined by their race/culture, though, and you could bet a lot of money that such splats would end up making certain race/class combos the ne plus ultra of that class.

PrCs could still have a place for certain secret societies and prestige societies in a culture or higher level memberships in an organization, but they are in my opinion, a poor way to reflect the influence of race, culture, and organizational training by having a character wait several levels to show this differentiation.

I agree with that, at least.

I think PrCs would be fine for the role of "advanced classes" (something D&D has long had - c.f. RC D&D etc., and many other RPGs have used successfully), with a fixed entry point (likely level 10 or 11), and clear, limited entry requirements (prob. with a focus on RP/culture stuff rather than stats or feats), allowing you to "specialize" your class a bit, much like Paragon Paths in 4E (but probably more significant), but I don't think they're a good model for anything lower-level than 10, and I think the whole "Oh you make them up for your individual campaign idea!" was a ridiculous pipe-dream on about fourteen levels (the first being that it's huge work for something that might never get used, the second being that most DMs are not keen on designing classes, or good at it... and so on). If you are going to suggest DMs do it themselves, they need a really strong mechanical framework to do it with (something no edition has ever provided explicitly).

EDIT - On abuse, yeah, I didn't see it much IRL, but what I did see being a REAL problem in the REAL game was ridiculous entry requirements forcing players to plan ahead really far, or, if they didn't (and most didn't), get frustrated when they found the requirements (personally I tended to waive them, but still), and really dodgy mechanics on PrCs, where they might sound good, but actually be terrible, or be good, but only for an ultra-specialized build that went somewhat against the concept of the PrC.

 

[MoonSong]

The problem is: Those are only words, not design.

The standard method of game design is making people do what you want them to, by making them "win" in the process.

If you want people to make their own prestige classes, offer a procedure to do so. Not finished results, except for an example or two. On the other hand, by rolling out lots of prestige classes that offer bonuses, you make people "win" by using and perusing them.

That got even worse because players were not able to find a common system by reading the official PrCs, because there was none. Therefore there was no way to reverse engineer them. Therefore in the minds of the community those official PrCs did not became examples, but artifacts that you would better not mess with.

It's much easier with DDN subclasses. I can write you new subclasses, no problem.

Well, let me tell you. The DMG 2 did feature design guidelines and even a detailed description of each element on building a prc. Design advice very obviously disregarded by the people writing the splats.