The emancipation of feats and death of PrC's?(long)

[Estlor]

I think if you want to replace prestige classes, you can't do it with just feats alone. Feats should remain rather generic, non-class specific special bonuses or rule bending abilities you gain as you go up in level.

A better idea would be to borrow "Talent Trees" from D20 modern. Make a number of trees to cover the possible archetypes that class is meant to represent and allow the player to cherry-pick from them as wished.

For example, pretend the class Fighter had talent trees for these niches (and this list is in no way meant to be exhaustive):
Mirmydon (the ultimate soldier)
Swashbuckler (a lightly armored warrior with panache)
Marksman (a ranged weapon expert)
Guacho (a master of mounted combat)
Gladiator (unorthodox fighting with exotic weapons)

As a PC with a fighter, I can choose to pick low-level abilities from each talent tree, becoming (in essance) a "pure base class fighter." However, I can focus on Swashbuckler (basically a fighter/duelist multiclass) or some other talent tree at the expense of other abilities.

The difference between a feat and a talent is the same between a feat and a class ability. A fighter picking from the Swashbuckler talent tree might take Combat Expertise as a feat and gain the Acrobatic Charge talent off of the tree.

 

[Nyaricus]

I give out a feat every level except 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, when they get ability bonuses. No one complains.

Another interesting suggestion. I'll bring it to the attention of my players, and see what they think

 

[ForceUser]

I'm starting to lean more and more towards Crothian's "feat every level" paradigm.

Bleh. Not me. Feats are special. Choose them wisely.

Like the OP, I too am happy at the shift from prestige to core classes. I'd rather offer thirty core classes and a host of variants and substitution levels than a single prestige class. PrCs possess a clunky, paradoxical mechanic.

 

[jstater]

You need a special power or ability at every level? Man, OD&D would drive some of you guys nuts.

 

[Baron Opal]

Like the OP, I too am happy at the shift from prestige to core classes. I'd rather offer thirty core classes and a host of variants and substitution levels than a single prestige class. PrCs possess a clunky, paradoxical mechanic.

And there's the rub. I would rather have 8-12 classes at most, and the rest of the specialization handled by a prestige class. I find resonance with the PrC concept probably becuase of the RuneQuest I played, so it fits well with my expectations.

To each his own.

 

[Baron Opal]

I guess there are three paths you can take with a class system depending on your comfort level. You can have a plethora of base classes that cover most of the character concepts. Even exotic concepts have their own class, and the few that don't are covered through multiclassing. (Current D&D; Hexblade, Beguiler, &c.)

You can go to the other side where you have only very generic classes that support overaching themes (blade, magic, skill). Each class is customizable with feat selection and talent trees (d20 Modern, True 20).

Or, you can go with a moderate number of classes and exotic concepts are handled with multiclassing or the use of secondary classes (PrC) that the characters graduate to. (Initial D&D)

Of the three, my personal preference is the last, although I am beginning to appreciate the second. I appreciate Iron Heroes' structure of a base class that emphisies a particular fighting style that is further customized with feats. It seems like the class specific abilities could be written out like a talent tree.

 

[ForceUser]

And there's the rub. I would rather have 8-12 classes at most, and the rest of the specialization handled by a prestige class. I find resonance with the PrC concept probably becuase of the RuneQuest I played, so it fits well with my expectations.

To each his own.

The real problem I have with prestige classes is that they practically require players to build their characters from level 1 with a particular PrC in mind. This leads to a couple of things I dislike.

The first thing I dislike is that there's little or no organic growth to a PrC-destined character because that character's growth is predetermined many levels in advance so that he can fulfill PrC entry requirements. As a result, characters destined for PrCs often end up with feats and skills that have little bearing on who the character is right now. I prefer it when players make choices to grow their characters based upon where the campaign goes; fulfilling those PrC entry reqs no matter what happens in the campaign has always struck me as artificial. I've experienced this sense of artificiality many times over the years.

The other thing I dislike about PrCs is that, due to the mechanical sacrifices a character makes to enter a class (Endurance feat, anyone?), players then come to feel as though it is their right to enter the class at the minimum level possible. This isn't necessarily wrong-headed thinking given the nature of PrCs, especially since so many of them are character-defining, but it does create tension between me and my players for one simple reason: I require that a character earn entry into a PrC through active roleplaying, which often involves some sort of quest. Thus, depending on the conflux of the nature of the PrC, the nature of the campaign, and the desires of the other players, it is often that a character ends up not entering the PrC at the minimum possible level. This bothers a lot of players, but I don't feel that imposing a roleplaying requirement to enter an elite profession should be viewed as a negative in a roleplaying game.

In closing, damn the mechanics! If you want to join a prestige class, impress me with your storytelling!

 

[Baron Opal]

The real problem I have with prestige classes is that they practically require players to build their characters from level 1 with a particular PrC in mind.

...

The first thing I dislike is that there's little or no organic growth to a PrC-destined character because that character's growth is predetermined many levels in advance so that he can fulfill PrC entry requirements.

...

The other thing I dislike about PrCs is that, due to the mechanical sacrifices a character makes to enter a class (Endurance feat, anyone?)...

I agree wholeheartedly. These are the main reasons why I design my own prestige classes. I find that the pre-requisites are fairly superfluous as a character who wants to be an exceptional archer or a fire focussed magician has already considered taking the appropriate skills and feats towards that goal. I also believe that a class should not be balanced by forcing the acquisition of "substandard" feats or skills. In a prestige class that I design requisite feats are logical choices and requisite skills are skills that the character currently uses and will continue to have a use for. If a magical PrC has origami as a skill, than that skill will be used in ritual casting, magic item preparation, or some other continual use.

For example, fighters that join the Way of the Five Winds School are already going to be agile fighters (Unfettered, for us AE fans). The abilities granted are going to be little use to those with a poor BAB or those dependant on heavy armor. I believe that they have certain standards, however, so they demand a minimum BAB and Reflex save. The Gorgon-Blooded, however, have no use for all of that pansy prancing about, and need their followers to be more hardy (Fort save minimum). Finally, I "charge" a feat to qualify for the PrC. Buying this feat shows the character's commitment to the organization, and the acceptance of that character by that organization. This feat is always worthwhile, but still on par with other feats.

I maintain a power balance by considering what abilities the character loses in taking the PrC levels over the base class. In AE, every class continues to gain abilities beyond that of BAB or spells, so there is a trade-off that has to be considered.

To shift towards the OP, I do like the proliferation of base classes and feats. This gives me good ideas as to what makes a good feat: not too advantageous or worthless. Also, what might make for a good PrC power or theme for a PrC. But, I've made the PrC paradigm work for me, and work well.

 

[Silveras]

The real problem I have with prestige classes is that they practically require players to build their characters from level 1 with a particular PrC in mind. This leads to a couple of things I dislike.

--snip--

In closing, damn the mechanics! If you want to join a prestige class, impress me with your storytelling!

Have you looked at the variant for using a challenge or test to enter a Prestige class ? It was in, if I recall correctly, Complete Warrior, and works best for organization-based PrCs. Instead of focusing on specific mechanical requirements, the DM creates essentially a solo-adventure challenge that tests the qualities the organization/PrC cares about (in other words, treats the listed requirements as something that the prospect must demonstrate some ability with).

-- with respect to the original topic --
I like having the choice between presenting some things as Prestige Class features and other things as feats. I create both in my homebrew, and I import published ones liberally. I also stick to the basic "every 3rd level" feat acquisition rule.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, the idea of substitution levels instead of PrC's intrigues me. That way you can streamline archetypes without having to bulk up with an entire PrC. From what I've seen, I would hope that subbing levels becomes the norm, rather than PrC's. That way DM's can't lord it over players that they have to do something to "earn" the PrC and jump through whatever hoops until the DM is happy.