The Prestige Fallacy

[pawsplay]

I like prestige classes just fine. I consider the duskblade to be a fairly weak design. My players occasionally plan for specific prestige classes, but certainly don't have every feat mapped out from first level, and have sometimes changed their minds about where they were headed.

 

[Imp]

The case of the truly egregious PrC'd character can be solved by looking at the sheet and seeing whether or not it looks ridiculous.

Some prestige classes – not very many, but definitely some – are broken and/or not party-friendly. Reading EN World has helped me to identify those.

Prestige classes are generally fine, though I don't disagree that some may have worked better as feat trees, others by rebalancing mechanics that the PrCs were made to patch. Of course you have to make sure the PrCing is in harmony with the campaign.

 

[pawsplay]

The real prestige class fallacy is that prestige classes are themselves responsible for broken builds. In fact, feats and base classes can be just as much a problem, if they are poorly designed.

 

[Pants]

I like prestige classes a lot. I use them all the time when I design NPC's.

My players, however, don't seem to care about them at all. They're usually happy sticking with the base class until 20 and might consider a PrC only if I point one out to them.

Me: "Hey, this looks like it would fit your character concept."

Player: "Yeah, that's pretty cool, but I'm gonna stick with being a bard for now."

 

[Delta]

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.

As is often the case now, my experience is wildly different. In a 5-year 3E campaign, out of all the WOTC supplement books, the only single prestige class that anyone thought interesting enough to pursue was: Holy Liberator.

It wasn't me (I was DM'ing at the time), but I agreed and it fit very nicely with the campaign arc. I would really want the alignment champions to have different mechanical classes -- it's actually the best possible rationale for prestige classes I can think of. If the LG paladin also needs to be a prestige class to balance things out (as UA's Prestigious Paladin), then that's probably for the better, too.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I mostly agree with Psion, although I have to say that the more prestige classes I looked at, the more I became concerned about whether I would allow them in the game. The classic example of broken and wrong is the Kensai + Vow of Poverty because it's an end-run-around the restrictions of the VoP.

In all my 3.0/3.5 design experience, I probably didn't design more than 10 prestige classes, and I'm happy with the ones I made. Rather than going for the UBER POWERZ!!!! I went for concepts that were cool and not already available in the existing rules. Maybe this made them the worthless concept pieces that didn't offer anything for the power gamer, but I've heard from a number of people who have played them and said they were enjoyable.

As far as I'm concerned, there are numerous prestige classes in the game that are a little problematic due to the high power level or frankly, lack of interesting concept, but I also think that a prestige class shouldn't just be allowed to be taken because it exists. First, the DM should have the right to refuse to allow the PrC into the game, then the character should actually be required to spend the levels leading up to it trying to gain acceptance by the organization attached to the PrC (even if one is not implicitly written into the class). Finally, once the PC becomes part of a PrC, he (or she) should be forced to play that class instead of just being a jacked up core class. I had one case where the player was just using the PrC for the kewl Powerz and wasn't playing at all like he was part of the PrC, so after several suggestions that he try a little harder to play the new role he had selected, I informed him that the organization decided to end his training and he would have to pick a different class next time he gained a level.

What can I say? Sometimes I'm a bit of a bastard of a DM because I actually require players to actually roleplay their characters.

As is often the case now, my experience is wildly different. In a 5-year 3E campaign, out of all the WOTC supplement books, the only single prestige class that anyone thought interesting enough to pursue was: Holy Liberator.

I agree. I always thought that the idea of lawful-good only paladins was unbalancing, so I house ruled paladins of all alignments before WotC ever did anything official with it.

 

[Runestar]

The classic example of broken and wrong is the Kensai + Vow of Poverty because it's an end-run-around the restrictions of the VoP.

For whatever it is worth, VOP is actually a very weak feat (even for classes such as monks or druids, which seem like they are supposed to be less reliant on gear). You cannot customize your gear, and the converted GP benefits is only about 80% of what a normal PC would get using the standard wealth guidelines.

A kensai's weapon might violate the intent/spirit of VOP (this is really a personal judgement call), but mechanically speaking, you would probably still be weaker than a kensai PC with magic gear.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

Character history is the one circumstance where I agree that PrCs are appropriate. Whether a character joins a special organization during the course of adventuring or through self-education learns to do two things better (combo-concepts), a PrC actually does fit. But at the same time, PCs should have access to these same concepts from level 1 via base classes, feats, alternate class abilities and whatnot.

The blackguard thing I can kinda buy, but still, you have to have 5 ranks in Hide. So in order to become a fallen paladin-blackguard you have to go through this bizarre metagame hoop to realize your concept.

I agree. I always thought that the idea of lawful-good only paladins was unbalancing, so I house ruled paladins of all alignments before WotC ever did anything official with it.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think of this. I wouldn't mind having multiple holy warrior base classes that all had different mechanics to reflect their differing alignment restrictions, but for me it's not worth the work or the money to buy the supplement.

TS

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I mostly agree with Psion, although I have to say that the more prestige classes I looked at, the more I became concerned about whether I would allow them in the game. The classic example of broken and wrong is the Kensai + Vow of Poverty because it's an end-run-around the restrictions of the VoP.

Aside from what Runestar pointed out, I'd just like to know...how? Kensai lets you add on to an existing enhancement, but you can't use your class ability to increase the weapon's enhancement beyond your class level regardless of if it was already magical or not. So it's not like you're "stacking" the VoP increases with Kensai, and if the goal is to save xp by waiting for a good base enhancement on the weapon from VoP, well...you'll be waiting a long time. And really, at that point, it's not much different than an normal character entering Kensai.

VoP guy: I have a +2 weapon from my vow, so from Kensai 3+ on, I'll be increasing it with xp.
Regular guy: Uh...ditto, except I just payed to make mine +2 before reaching Kensai. *shrug*

In fact...by a strict reading of the rules, VoP may actually be horrible for Kensai. VoP says you treat any weapon you wield as +x. Theoretically, that means you can't even stack it like you could with a normal magic weapon with Kensai. Ie, if you're Kensai 3, you would have to pay for all the xp to get to +3, and then you'd basically have a weapon that's at all times either +3 from Kensai or +2 from vow, but the benefits overlap. And then also...doesn't the weapon chosen have to be masterwork if not unarmed strike? Any non-monk VoP character would be up the creek there...

 

[Darrin Drader]

Aside from what Runestar pointed out, I'd just like to know...how? Kensai lets you add on to an existing enhancement, but you can't use your class ability to increase the weapon's enhancement beyond your class level regardless of if it was already magical or not. So it's not like you're "stacking" the VoP increases with Kensai, and if the goal is to save xp by waiting for a good base enhancement on the weapon from VoP, well...you'll be waiting a long time. And really, at that point, it's not much different than an normal character entering Kensai.

VoP guy: I have a +2 weapon from my vow, so from Kensai 3+ on, I'll be increasing it with xp.
Regular guy: Uh...ditto, except I just payed to make mine +2 before reaching Kensai. *shrug*

In fact...by a strict reading of the rules, VoP may actually be horrible for Kensai. VoP says you treat any weapon you wield as +x. Theoretically, that means you can't even stack it like you could with a normal magic weapon with Kensai. Ie, if you're Kensai 3, you would have to pay for all the xp to get to +3, and then you'd basically have a weapon that's at all times either +3 from Kensai or +2 from vow, but the benefits overlap. And then also...doesn't the weapon chosen have to be masterwork if not unarmed strike? Any non-monk VoP character would be up the creek there...

Forget the mechanics for a second and think about this logically. VoP says you can have no magic weapons. Kensai says that your body parts become magic weapons. Tell me that there isn't a conflict of interest here.