The Prestige Fallacy

[blargney the second]

There isn't that much opportunity cost, that I can see.

For each level you take in a given class, the opportunity cost is that it automatically means you are not taking that same level in every other class in existence. So every time a new option is made available, the opportunity cost of any particular decision increases.

Even worse, PrCs actually double those costs. In addition to the cost above, you also have to pay for them ahead of time with (often) relatively useless feats, which escalates the cost of your feat decisions. If you consider that each class/feat combination precludes every other possible class/feat combo, the effects are multiplicative.

My point here is mainly that PrCs complicate decision-making in a way that I don't particularly enjoy.
-blarg

 

[Noumenon]

Actually opportunity cost only refers to the "next best" alternative decision -- just to avoid the situation you describe. Adding more options shouldn't makes a good decision worse if the new options are all crappy.

 

[blargney the second]

... and if the options aren't so crappy as to be automatically excluded?

There are certainly plenty of PrCs that are good enough to warrant consideration whenever you're making a character. If there are enough good fits for a given concept, you still have to weigh them all against each other, even if your final decision is just to ignore them (like I do).

 

[Noumenon]

... and if the options aren't so crappy as to be automatically excluded?

It's still the case that you can't actually take more than one prestige class with your next level. You don't miss out on all four of PrC1, PrC2, PrC3, and PrC4 -- you only miss out on whichever one you would have taken if you didn't take the one you did. That's why only the "next best" option counts for your opportunity cost.

 

[pawsplay]

Practically speaking, you can simply ignore all the options that you aren't immediately aware of and focus on what seems obvious, useful, and on its face, effecient. The fact that you may be missing out on the actual very best choice for your desired goal is basically inconsequential, as long as what you actually go with is reasonably successful and competitive with the options you did consider.

For each level you take in a given class, the opportunity cost is that it automatically means you are not taking that same level in every other class in existence. So every time a new option is made available, the opportunity cost of any particular decision increases.

Only if the new option is better, and only by the amount it is better, which is likely to be a very small amount once you have considered a half dozen or so reasonable choices.

 

[Mokona]

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition had a great concept: core base classes upon which all characters could be built. If you want to play a certain kind of fighter then take different feats than that other type of fighter. If you want to play a Fighter/Magic-User then just multiclass 50% in each and no XP penalties apply.

Two problems arose:

1. Multiclassing under 3rd edition just didn't work for most class combinations where one or both classes didn't rely on a weapon and Base Attack Bonus. Fighter/Rogue worked great. Wizard/Sorcerer was a terrible choice.

2. D&D is a class system. The build-it-yourself character concept requires a lot of flexibility that is hard to achieve with only a few classes. Also, feats were too few and far between to provide a satisfying level of distinction between class builds.

Prestige classes were the perfect solution. The most useless prestige classes weren't available until you were 11th or even 15th level. By then the game was practically over for 90% of games/players. Prestige classes allowed game designers to take a step back and fix the two issues above with something that players seemed to actively enjoy (at least based on sales of books that contained prestige classes).

Why did prestige classes resonate so well with players?

I argue that people don't play Dungeons & Dragons because it is the best game, nor the most realistic game, nor the coolest game. D&D continues to win the RPG war because it is simple. Character class progression is the largest part of D&D's simplicity. Once you choose your character's archetype your at least 75% done and you don't have to fiddle around or master the rules to get a character.

Prestige classes are popular because they're conceptually simple. Many prestige classes are very targetted character builds or even narrow builds within a base class. It is easy for player to grasp a build when it comes pre-packaged for them in a tidy prestige class.

Furthermore, designers felt they had the power to give out more powerful yet specialized abilities to prestige classes that weren't available through multiclassing or feat chains. Therefore prestige classes became a very useful and successful way for players to reach their character concept builds and HAVE FUN!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Multiclassing under 3rd edition just didn't work for most class combinations where one or both classes didn't rely on a weapon and Base Attack Bonus. Fighter/Rogue worked great. Wizard/Sorcerer was a terrible choice.

That depends on who you are and what you want. If your overwhelming focus is on mechanics, then yes, certain choices are "sub-optimal."

OTOH, if your focus is on realizing the character, 3.X multiclassing is pretty good. The only penalties to RP are penumbral to the mechanics. If that bothers you, so be it.

Personally, I can see playing a PC- a fun PC- who is a Wiz/Sorc(/maybe something else). He has both innate abilities and some "book learning" in his makeup. Perhaps he'll pursue both equally, perhaps he's going to gravitate towards one or the other. Maybe he wants to be an Ultimate Magus or some such.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Why did prestige classes resonate so well with players?

A pretty good analysis. I don't entirely agree on the caster/non-caster multiclass consensus that it's terrible and in need of fixing, though. Of course it's suboptimal -- unless you're getting major goodies like casting stat to AC it's never mechanically worth it to lose a caster level, and even then it's probably the lesser choice. That's not all that matters, though. If you don't care about being the best wizard and would rather be able to mix in some melee, going into fighter and eldritch knight (or spellsword, or whatever) makes sense. Is a Wizard 10 / Fighter 10 weaker than a Wizard 20? Absolutely. Is it stronger than a Fighter 20? Absolutely. You've gone down the middle with the two classes, and ended with a power level...somewhere in the middle. That doesn't sound like a broken system to me. Fighter being that much weaker than wizard is, but not the multiclassing. I think the main "problem" in comparing caster/non-caster combos is that they're compared to straight casters, which is just plain unfair. Roughly, the amount in each archetype will reflect proportionally on the character. A Wizard x / Fighter 1 / EK 10 will be only 2 CL behind a normal wizard and play fairly similar, with more accurate weapon-like spells and better health. A Fighter x / Wizard 1 will play much like a regular fighter, barely different in martial ability aside from likely less armor, but with the ability to use wands and scrolls for support and buff casting. Just my 2 cp, sorry for the rant.