Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Prestige Fallacy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shroomy" data-source="post: 4578040" data-attributes="member: 32739"><p>Almost every negative aspect you describe is a patch on the core system, so the question is why did the prestige class, initially presented as an <em>optional</em> system, become the primary means of patching the system? I think it comes down to the initial design philosophy. </p><p></p><p>Core classes were intended to be broad-based archetypes mostly under the purview of the players, while prestige classes were role-playing centric methods of rewarding specialization, theoretically under the control of the DM due to the campaign considerations. The underlying simulationism in the 3.x ruleset would dictate that the type of dedicated specialization represented by a prestige class (plus the notoriety required to come to the attention of the sponsoring groups) would not initially be available to a player (not sure how they came up with the correct threshold, though its 1/4th the way through the 20th level advancement table). For the first five levels or so, specialization would be achieved through multi-classing and feat acquisition, and because of the "prestige" component of prestige classes, I think this was also supposed to be the method that general (for lack of a better term) specialization would occur.</p><p></p><p>IMO, the problem was that the rate of feat acquisition ended up being too low and multi-classing could easily produce strange and inefficient results. Combine that with dead levels, power disparity between the core classes, and a player centric business model, you're going to look for patches that are going to achieve similar results to what you initially intended. The fact that prestige classe were only 5 or 10 levels long makes them easier (in theory) to design than a full 20 level class and you could fit more of them into the sourcebooks.</p><p></p><p>The question is why didn't WoTC try to fix the issue with core classes, alternative class features, or feats? Well, to be fair, WoTC did create a lot of additional bases classes, usually as part of a new sub-system (psionic classes, incarnum classes, binders, Bo9S classes). For the most part, the remainder never really achieved widespread popularity. IMO, I think a lot of that is that there was too much overlap in how certain classes operated, some were essentially glorified prestige classes, and others, well people, didn't want to mix Asian-styled classes in a Eurocentric game. In any case, the new core classes didn't eliminate the issues of dead levels (a method of balance that encourages players to look elsewhere; notice that the majority of prestige classes lacked dead levels of any sort) or power disparity between classes.</p><p></p><p>As for feats and alternate class features, well, again I think that the rate of feat acquisition was too low to take the place of a mass of class features, and there was additional disparity in the power of feats. Alternate class features came about towards the end of the 3.x product line, and they probably offered the best alternative to prestige classes. In fact, given the timing of their appearance, I can't help but think their introduction to 3.5e was due to the influence of the 4e power system. However, despite their potential, alternative class features still had to contend with dead levels and power disparity between the classes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shroomy, post: 4578040, member: 32739"] Almost every negative aspect you describe is a patch on the core system, so the question is why did the prestige class, initially presented as an [i]optional[/i] system, become the primary means of patching the system? I think it comes down to the initial design philosophy. Core classes were intended to be broad-based archetypes mostly under the purview of the players, while prestige classes were role-playing centric methods of rewarding specialization, theoretically under the control of the DM due to the campaign considerations. The underlying simulationism in the 3.x ruleset would dictate that the type of dedicated specialization represented by a prestige class (plus the notoriety required to come to the attention of the sponsoring groups) would not initially be available to a player (not sure how they came up with the correct threshold, though its 1/4th the way through the 20th level advancement table). For the first five levels or so, specialization would be achieved through multi-classing and feat acquisition, and because of the "prestige" component of prestige classes, I think this was also supposed to be the method that general (for lack of a better term) specialization would occur. IMO, the problem was that the rate of feat acquisition ended up being too low and multi-classing could easily produce strange and inefficient results. Combine that with dead levels, power disparity between the core classes, and a player centric business model, you're going to look for patches that are going to achieve similar results to what you initially intended. The fact that prestige classe were only 5 or 10 levels long makes them easier (in theory) to design than a full 20 level class and you could fit more of them into the sourcebooks. The question is why didn't WoTC try to fix the issue with core classes, alternative class features, or feats? Well, to be fair, WoTC did create a lot of additional bases classes, usually as part of a new sub-system (psionic classes, incarnum classes, binders, Bo9S classes). For the most part, the remainder never really achieved widespread popularity. IMO, I think a lot of that is that there was too much overlap in how certain classes operated, some were essentially glorified prestige classes, and others, well people, didn't want to mix Asian-styled classes in a Eurocentric game. In any case, the new core classes didn't eliminate the issues of dead levels (a method of balance that encourages players to look elsewhere; notice that the majority of prestige classes lacked dead levels of any sort) or power disparity between classes. As for feats and alternate class features, well, again I think that the rate of feat acquisition was too low to take the place of a mass of class features, and there was additional disparity in the power of feats. Alternate class features came about towards the end of the 3.x product line, and they probably offered the best alternative to prestige classes. In fact, given the timing of their appearance, I can't help but think their introduction to 3.5e was due to the influence of the 4e power system. However, despite their potential, alternative class features still had to contend with dead levels and power disparity between the classes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Prestige Fallacy
Top