The Prestige Fallacy

[El Mahdi]

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.

Yeah, I'll agree that Prestige Classes do have a significant difference from 4E Paths. I know that the rules were designed to be able to take a path or not. But I haven't played 4E myself, and I don't know how many people have actually played past 10th or 20th level yet with 4E, so I haven't heard anyones comments on whether it feels balanced or not (between those who take paths and those who don't).

I think for me, I just don't like the "mechanical" specialization that the rules seem to push. Now "Paths" as a purely roleplaying concept work for me. The idea that players have, as a matter of course, have some kind of Epic Destiny at high levels, is pretty cool. I just don't necessarily like the mechanical specialization that accompanies it.

But, I was only mentioning Paths in relation to Prestige Classes, mostly to the balancing aspect between party members at high levels. But again, I haven't actually played 4E to know if it feels balanced or not. If you play 4E, does it feel like you have to take a Path to "supplement" your class in order to keep up with everyone else? Or can you eschew them completely with no overall un-balancing effects?

 

[Runestar]

I agree that prcs are there as a quick fix to a flaw inherent with the base classes - that they only went so far in allowing you to customize your character. There is no one class which would allow me to construct a barbarian/fighter/bear warrior/warshaper/frenzied berserker concept (and creating a new base class just to cater to this narrow concept would be a waste of space). So we turn to multiclassing to solve this problem.

4e does not seem exempt either, with its usage of paragon paths and epic destinies. Granted, we are not being flooded with them at the same rate compared to 3e prcs, but give 4e a few years and I can easily see us having at least a hundred to choose from nonetheless.

 

[Remathilis]

What I detested about Prestige classes is the fact they allowed too broad a method of balancing. The general idea (swap level X for level Y) sounded ok, but it never balanced well, for two reasons.

1.) Classes didn't have enough "class features" that could be swapped out for comparable ones (for example, druids can give up wildshape for something plant-based powers, but a sorcerer gives up, a familiar?) Spellcasting classes primary "class feature" was spellcasting, and if you gave it up (in exchange for class features) it crippled your casting ability to the point of uselessness. (Try playing a cleric who has fallen behind in caster levels and you'll see a group with a lot of dead PCs).

2.) Since prestige classes were optional, they had to balance against the base classes, and unfortunately it was rare when they did. Most were clearly better, and a few clearly sucked. True "give up X for Y" balance was rare, and mostly PrCs ended up increasing PC power-bloat.

In the end, I'm glad they went the route of paragon-paths in 4e: everyone gets one, so everyone is balanced against it. You don't give up your primary role (wizard, rogue, fighter, etc) and paths are balanced against one another, not the base class.

 

[Psion]

Don’t bother thinking creatively, just take a PrC! Need a set of specific abilities for some NPC foes?

So, I'm to take it that to look at a PrC concept (and let's be up front: a large subset of prestige classes are all about the shtick) and find it to be a good fit for what you were looking for or inspire you to good ideas you hadn't thought of is a bad thing?

I disagree.

Further, I find that many of my players don't like pulling together special sets of feats and skills and would just as soon "subscribe" to a concept.

As for me GMing making NPCs... sometimes I find it relatively easy to pull together a unique concept using existing tools, other times a prestige class is just what I need. No need to throw away one tool just because another one is useful in other situations.

Finally, improvising unique concepts is much easier for the with prestige classes. I could pull together a bunch of unique feats from different sources that realize my concept and to improvise an NPC... and flip back and forth in the book. Or I can put a bookmark in the PrC and be done with it.

Well they’ll have to be at least sixth level, but there’s a PrC for that! Playing in a game above fifth level? Better take a PrC, or everyone will laugh and call you NEWB!

Nice sarcasm, but my experience differs. If this happens to you, the problem isn't prestige classes. The problem is your group.

The first word of the term ‘prestige class’ doesn’t even apply to most games;

So some are, some are just specialized concepts. It's just semantics. Get past it.

No prestigious organizations, just pointless prereqs that force players to plan out their stat minutiae from level 1. God forbid that all those cool special abilities should be available to single classed characters as alternate class features, feats and spells! Or even as base classes!

God forbid we ask players to build their characters to resemble the sort of person who would develop these abilities or become part of these organizations!

Some PrCs are simply means to circumvent artificial restrictions in core. Example: blackguard and holy liberator, which exist solely to bypass the paladin’s needlessly restrictive alignment requirement. That’s downright moronic. God forbid these character concepts should be available from level 1!

Sure. If that's the way you feel. Get this:
EN World PDF Store - Green Ronin - Holy Warrior's Handbook

I would agree these particular PrCs are dumb.

But for some folks, the most compelling idea about paladinhood is the fall; thus the blackguard. Nonetheless, I think the holy liberator is dumb no matter how you slice it.

And then there’s the combo-concept PrCs. How many gish PrCs came out before someone in R&D finally said “Hey, why don’t we just make this a base class? We’ll call it the duskblade!”? Five? Six? Seventeen? All of those combo-concept PrCs would be better off as base classes; mystic theurge & co., arcane trickster, I’m sure there are others.

Wholly and completely disagree. The duskblade, spellfilch, and savant were all woefully inflexible in concept and ability to build the concept through history, to make a character who starts out as one type and moving towards the others. With a duskblade, for example, you are stuck with the spells and fighting style they give you. It makes much more sense to plug into the much more broadly supported base classes.

There are PrCs that exist to compensate for the suckitude of the game mechanics; Tempest and that TWF PrC from Bo9S comes immediately to mind.

If the point is "two handed fighting is too good under 3.5 because the 3.5 designers decided math is hard", I can only agree. But again, the root problem here is not PrCs, but a) a poor design decision (two handed weapon and power attack damage) and b) poor post-hoc methods of correcting that.

There are PrCs that exist solely as magnifications of base classes; I’m looking at you, Radiant Servant of Pelor and Frenzied Berserker!

Again, don't disagree. But again, bad apples, not the bunch.

 

[el-remmen]

1) No one in any of my games has to yet take a PrC.

2) I treat PrCs as truly prestigious/specialized, and as such only allow those that fit into the setting, which also means that most of them have been tweaked flavor and power-wise to fit my homebrew

3) I therefore conclude that PrCs are only a problem if a) the DM allows them to be, by not establishing precedent for the difficulty and/or restrictions that should come along with them and b) if you allow any or all PrCs without considering their role in the setting.

Put most succinctly, PrCs are best when considered as flavor first and mechanics second.

 

[Shroomy]

Yeah, I'll agree that Prestige Classes do have a significant difference from 4E Paths. I know that the rules were designed to be able to take a path or not. But I haven't played 4E myself, and I don't know how many people have actually played past 10th or 20th level yet with 4E, so I haven't heard anyones comments on whether it feels balanced or not (between those who take paths and those who don't).

I think for me, I just don't like the "mechanical" specialization that the rules seem to push. Now "Paths" as a purely roleplaying concept work for me. The idea that players have, as a matter of course, have some kind of Epic Destiny at high levels, is pretty cool. I just don't necessarily like the mechanical specialization that accompanies it.

But, I was only mentioning Paths in relation to Prestige Classes, mostly to the balancing aspect between party members at high levels. But again, I haven't actually played 4E to know if it feels balanced or not. If you play 4E, does it feel like you have to take a Path to "supplement" your class in order to keep up with everyone else? Or can you eschew them completely with no overall un-balancing effects?

We haven't got to paragon levels yet (we just made 6th level in our game), but the general consensus is that paragon multi-classing is not comparable in power to selecting a paragon path. In return for 3 (sometimes 4) class features (two at 11th, including an AP power, and one at 16th level) and 3 powers (11th level attack, 12th level utility, 20th level attack) you get to swap out an at-will power (the only way to do so in the game), a 7th level or lower attack power, a 10th level or lower utility power, and a 19th level or lower attack power. Right there, you can see the disparity, though an experienced character can probably find quite a few nice synergies. Now, a potentially interesting wrinkle is that Martial Powers introduced new feats available only to paragon multi-classed characters which allow you to gain some of the class features of your multi-class; its a step in the right direction, but I still think it would result in an underpowered character.

 

[Oni]

We haven't got to paragon levels yet (we just made 6th level in our game), but the general consensus is that paragon multi-classing is not comparable in power to selecting a paragon path. In return for 3 (sometimes 4) class features (two at 11th, including an AP power, and one at 16th level) and 3 powers (11th level attack, 12th level utility, 20th level attack) you get to swap out an at-will power (the only way to do so in the game), a 7th level or lower attack power, a 10th level or lower utility power, and a 19th level or lower attack power. Right there, you can see the disparity, though an experienced character can probably find quite a few nice synergies. Now, a potentially interesting wrinkle is that Martial Powers introduced new feats available only to paragon multi-classed characters which allow you to gain some of the class features of your multi-class; its a step in the right direction, but I still think it would result in an underpowered character.

Paragon multiclassing will continue to get better and better as more powers and classes become available IMO.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Allow me to simply state "I agree" to what Psion said.

 

[Runestar]

2) I treat PrCs as truly prestigious/specialized, and as such only allow those that fit into the setting, which also means that most of them have been tweaked flavor and power-wise to fit my homebrew

Me? I see them as simply being natural extension of existing base classes. And I personally do think that too much emphasis has been placed on the whole "prestige" aspect, leading to needless restrictions such as "not being able to take more than 1 prc" or "must finish taking all 10 levels". Flavour can easily be revised, so I see little reason why it has to be adhered to so stringently.

Don't really see a problem though. That melee build with 4 different prcs is still weaker than the party spellcaster, if you are worried about possibly upsetting game balance.

 

[Shroomy]

Paragon multiclassing will continue to get better and better as more powers and classes become available IMO.

While I think players will be able to find nice synergies, overall I still think that it will lag behind PPs due to the lower level powers and lack of class features (I think a savy player with time and access to a lot supplements could construct a character that work as well as a PP). I think additional feats granting access to class features will probably do more to make paragon multi-classing more palatable, but players will still have to burn feats to do so, which they won't have to do if they take a PP.