The Trend from Prestige to Base

[Drowbane]

If this has already been re-hashed 3,000 times, forgive me.

Ok, if you take all the new base classes since 3.5 and look at them, there is a trend brewing...

Some Examples: Knight, Samurai, Ninja, Swashbuckler, and Duskblade are basically level 1 versions of older PrCs (knight protector, master samurai, ninja scout, duelist, spellsword).

Other base classes have a flavor that screams "I coulda been a PrC": Healer, Warmage, Beguiler, Dragon Shaman

Still others seem to be trying to fix the problem of multi-classers not working out well: Spell-thief, Duskblade.

The third Introduce a new concept to the game not seen before or handled with the core: Psion, Incarnate, Favored Soul, Dragon Shaman, Marshal, Warlock

The last is the orientals; no further need to go into them (Samurai, Shugenja, Wu Jen, Ninja)

Aside from some estoric concepts, you could now use ALL base classes and remove ALL PrCs from the game. You could go a step further and remove multi-classing, but I kinda like keeping it in for fine-tuning.

So, is the PrC a dying breed, with the trend toward interesting base classes? Is this good or bad?

Hmm.

You're smoking crack if you honestly compare the Samurai (OA or the pathetic CW version) to the Master Samurai!

Anyways, I see your point. Maybe they'll return to all Base classes for 4e. Until then, long live the PrC!

 

[Remathilis]

Hmm.

You're smoking crack if you honestly compare the Samurai (OA or the pathetic CW version) to the Master Samurai!

Anyways, I see your point. Maybe they'll return to all Base classes for 4e. Until then, long live the PrC!

I was making an observation; it was first a PrC, then a base-class (twice!)

And my drug habit has NOTHING to do with this conversation.

 

[MerricB]

But can a paladin qualify and take levels in prestige paladin? Does that make him more-paladin-than-paladin, or merely holier-than-thou? ;-)

Does it matter?

Cheers!

 

[Felon]

More base classes are good.

Prestige classes are also good.

Neither need to be setting-specific. DM's can tend to that.

 

[Umbran]

So, is the PrC a dying breed, with the trend toward interesting base classes? Is this good or bad?

I don't think of it as a trend. I think of it as a correction.

When 3e came out, everyone was printing prestige classes like mad. At this point, you could fill a swamp with prestige classes. But, some folks would like certain character types, but don't want to use a prestige class. Designing core classes to fill the roles gives them an option.

Essentially, I think of it as giving folks more choices in how they can assemble their campaigns. That's a good thing..

Plus, what if you want a game that has special sub-types of samurai? That sort of calls for a specialized base class for the general samurai role, with prestige classes on top of that...

 

[delericho]

Talking about alignment restrictions on base classes...

That removes paladins (LG),

Indeed. I can see two resolutions to this: have "Holy Warriors" of all alignments of (my preferred choice) make the Paladin a PrC.

Druids (N-something),

I would drop the alignment restriction. LG druids might be a bit of a stretch, but if we can have CN and NE druids, are CE druids so much of a stretch? Likewise CG doesn't seem to big a deal. I'm not sure about LE. However, I don't see too much hardship in removing the restriction.

(Plus, of course, many games drop alignment entirely, and have Druids working out just fine.)

Barbarian/Beserker (Nonlawful),

I find this one a bit more problematic - the notion of a Lawful barbarian srikes me as somewhat jarring. I'm sure there's some way to make it work, though. (Besides, I'm halfway inclined to say we don't need both a Barbarian and a Ranger class, and that Rage should be a talent tree or feat chain.)

Monk (lawful),

Rename the class to "Unarmed Combatant" and non-Lawful Monks fit a whole lot better. I've found that the Monk class is very good for representing certain pirate types, and (in particular) an Orcish street-brawler. Neither concept is particularly Lawful. I'd ditch the alignment requirement (and rename the class).

Bard (nonlawful)

Someone suggested a "Knight-errant" Paladin/Bard concept that sounded workable, except for the alignment restrictions. The basic upshot is that I don't think Bards need to be non-Lawful to really work as a class, so I'd drop the requirement.

Knight (lawful),

Okay, you've got me. I think the Knigth should be a PrC anyway, but there is a niche for that sort of warrior (that also includes Samurai in my view of classes BTW). And the nature of the class would seem to require a Lawful alignment.

Perhaps the solution there is to have some sort of 'Cultured Warrior' class, that can be used to represent the Knight, Samurai or Swashbuckler. Such a class would have medium skills, configurable good saves (say Fort + either Ref or Will), good BAB, and a bunch of talent trees related to being personable. Of course, the choice of following a code or not would then be up to the character. (Armour use would be one of the talent trees, or handled by feats - but that gets into how I would handle AC in a new version of the game, which is wildly off-topic, so I'll stop.)

I suspect that's probably a step too far in the 'broad classes' concept, though.

Warlock (Chaotic or evil),

Again, I reckon the alignment restriction is pure flavour, and you could almost posit a Warlock empowered by forces of Law and Goodness. There might need to be a slight expansion of the Invocations for this to work, but that's no bad thing.

healer (good)

Far too narrow a class to justify it's existence anyway, IMO.

hexblade (nongood) etc...

This class is banned from my games because of the alignment restriction (I only allow Good characters at the start of a campaign). But I see nothing in the class that is inherently non-Good, and can't be made to work without the alignment restriction.

Basically, my principle is that base classes should be nice broad building blocks for characters, unbound by the campaign environment. The designers of the game have no idea what my campaign looks like, so should design accordingly. There are certain roles that will feature in anything but very odd campaigns (Fighter, Rogue), and some that exist by virtue of their place within the rules systems elsewhere (Wizard, Psion).

By that logic, a Samurai is either a Fighter or 'Cultured Warrior' with particular choices of feats/skills/talent trees. A Wu Jen is either a Wizard with particular spells or a reflection of the new variant magic rules are added for the (theoretical 4e) Oriental Adventures supplement. A Swashbuckler is a Fighter or Rogue or 'Cultured Warrior' with different feats/skills/talent trees.

 

[Felon]

I don't think of it as a trend. I think of it as a correction.

When 3e came out, everyone was printing prestige classes like mad. At this point, you could fill a swamp with prestige classes. But, some folks would like certain character types, but don't want to use a prestige class. Designing core classes to fill the roles gives them an option.

Right. WotC didn't start introducing base classes until the Miniatures Handbook came out (which was right after the 3.5 revision was released--a point where 3e was well-established). I think it's a little deceptive to say call it a trend. They just didn't want to start cranking out base classes right away. They knew that with 3e still gaining acceptance, it would be a mistake to try to sell players on both prestige classes and alternate base classes. Since prestige classes build on the existing base classes, they were the correct choice to go with.

Of course, I'd say in a heartbeat that the biggest mistake was using the term "prestige". They didn't account for how literal-minded players can be, which is whyyou get all these posts about prestige classes not being very prestigious.

 

[Psion]

Of course, I'd say in a heartbeat that the biggest mistake was using the term "prestige". They didn't account for how literal-minded players can be, which is whyyou get all these posts about prestige classes not being very prestigious.

Yup. This despite that, at the time, a dragon article by one of the designers specifically mentions other reasons for having prestige classes, like making otherwise weak concepts viable.

 

[BryonD]

More base classes are good.

Prestige classes are also good.

Neither need to be setting-specific. DM's can tend to that.

Yep, yep and yep.
There will always be specific examples of bad design.
But more options + fair and reasonably intelligent DM = good for gaming.

 

[Felon]

Yup. This despite that, at the time, a dragon article by one of the designers specifically mentions other reasons for having prestige classes, like making otherwise weak concepts viable.

Right, Monte Cook's article covered the topic pretty well, including taking weak choices like wielding a whip or playing a kobold and making them cool. I think that a lot of the content from that article actually found its way into a hardback (DMG II maybe)?