The Prestige Fallacy

[Shroomy]

Which is why I always liked the approach Green Ronin took with their Holy Warriors appendix in Book of the Righteous.

What surprised me is that there have been numerous discussions and Dragon Magazine articles about this since 1Ed. You'd have thought the BotR approach- or something substantially similar- would have been adopted in the first printing of 3Ed by WotC itself.

I thought that the paladin alignment restrictions were removed and then put back in based on playtester feedback (or am I thinking about the multi-classing restrictions). In any case, I'm glad 4e jettisoned the lawful good requirement for paladins.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

While there is much truth in what the OP says, I think its a touch overstated.

For example, I tend to MC into base classes rather than PrCls. The last 2 3.X PCs I've played were both a form of armored spellcaster. One was a Ftr/Rgr/SpecWiz Div/Spellsword, the other was a Sorc/Ftr with Draconic heritage feats, including (most importantly) Draconic Breath.

I'm not alone in this- most of the PCs I've seen in my groups have largely ignored PrCls. Those players who did use PrCls tended to be aiming for some kind of unusual PC, like someone who was quasi-elemental in nature (genasi were not available).

Matches what I've seen, too. Much more multiclassing between base classes than going into prestige classes, which have those annoying prerequisites base classes do not. I don't think it's a bad thing, until a player dips one or two levels in several classes and it gets ridiculous.

 

[Aus_Snow]

*shrug*

I like prestige classes, as a game mechanics feature. Ever since the original D&D Bard, I've liked the idea. And yes, I even like a good 'gish' PrC and the like. Some class combinations should be worked towards, I think. They require extensive training and so on.

There are a lot of terrible ones out there, but hey, that goes for base classes, feats, spells, and all that stuff, perhaps equally.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's nothing 'prestigious' about the Frenzied Berserker. It's just the Barbarian turned up to 11.

I agree- its among the worst of the PrCls IMHO.

I thought that the paladin alignment restrictions were removed and then put back in based on playtester feedback (or am I thinking about the multi-classing restrictions).

Oh, I have ZERO problem with alignment restrictions for Paladins. I just think there should be a wider variety of Holy Warriors than just that one, and appropriate alignment restrictions go hand in hand with that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

*shrug*
There are a lot of terrible ones out there, but hey, that goes for base classes, feats, spells, and all that stuff, perhaps equally.

QFT. Ditto. Amen. Yes. This.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah, it's anectdotal evidence. But I don't have any studies or statistics to look to, so...oh well.

That's okay; my OP was an anecdotal rant.

In designing the 'Rage Mage' Monte Cook flat-out says that he read a line in the PHB that someone couldn't cast spells while Raging and took that as a challenge. "What if I *want* to do that?" And so he made a Rage Mage PrC.

Really? That's an interesting bit of trivia.

In any case, I'm glad 4e jettisoned the lawful good requirement for paladins.

Amen, brother! (Although it would've been nice if 4e hadn't sucked every ounce of meaning out of alignment, too. But whatever! I am sooo over it.)

TS

 

[El Mahdi]

I agree with the OP completely. I've never liked prestige classes, never played one, and never let anyone play them in games I've DM'd. If a Prestige Class is thematically significant enough, and mechanically not overbalanced, then there should be no reason why it couldn't just be designed as a core class in the first place.

I think another thing that Prestige Classes tried to fill in for were 2E Kits. People wanted a way to mechanically construct in 3E, Kits that they had in 2E. But I hated the way Prestige Classes did this. For example, if you wanted to be an Elven Bladesinger, you could start out at 1st level with the kit. It meant that you spent the 50 previous years before adventuring, doing nothing but learning to be a Bladesinger. In 3E, you didn't become a Bladesinger until you had achieved all of the required pre-requisites (something like level 7 or 8). So, all of the flavor of training for 50 years, and the "specialness" of being a Bladesinger, were nullified between 1st and whatever level. "You've been studying for the last 50 years, but until you hit 7th or 8th level, you're just another Fighter/Mage - Deal With It!".

Also, there was the balance issue of using Prestige Classes. Prestige classes added abilities you couldn't achieve through just normal Feat/Skill/Class combos gained through normal level progression. This meant that if I, as a DM, allowed someone to have a Prestige Class, I pretty much needed to encourage everyone to have one, just to keep everyone balanced. One could say that kits in 2E did this also, requiring that everyone needed to take kits, but I really don't feel that kits had nearly the impact on balance that Prestige Classes did.

This is one of my issues with 4E also, this concept that Prestige and Epic "Paths" are almost essentially required, if you want to keep up with the others in your party. It's almost like the game was designed with the "requirement" of specializing. Game concepts like this usually leave me with a very big disconnect between the mechanics of the game and the narrative aspects of the game.

If a concept is strong enough on it's own merits, then it's good enough to be a class - period. If it isn't, then it should only be modeled through options that you can learn (Feats and/or Powers). At least that's the way I see it.

 

[stonegod]

My two favorite characters: a 3.0 straight up monk to 20, and my human malcovoker (from Complete Scoundrel). The human had a few other PrC's thrown in, but they all fit thematically and had impact mechanically—I wasn't going to just cheeze factor. I think the approach in d20 Modern (were you *had* to take a different class 'cuz your base class "ran out") works in this case, and it would be difficult to have an effective build for my summoner character w/o it (Savage Tide would be *much* more difficult...)

 

[Shroomy]

This is one of my issues with 4E also, this concept that Prestige and Epic "Paths" are almost essentially required, if you want to keep up with the others in your party. It's almost like the game was designed with the "requirement" of specializing. Game concepts like this usually leave me with a very big disconnect between the mechanics of the game and the narrative aspects of the game.

I wouldn't say "almost," as I think it was designed with specialization specifically in mind (though you could forgo a paragon path for paragon multi-classing and strictly speaking you don't need to choose an epic destiny either). The thing about paragon paths and epic destinies is that they are supplements to instead of replacements for your base class, which makes them quite different from prestige classes IMO.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

While they may not always fit the title of "prestige", what's not to like about them? Players love the ability to customize. It keeps cropping up edition after edition. So why not embrace them?

It's not the art itself, it's the execution of it that I disagree with in many places. A poorly done class is a poorly done class, not the concept itself.