tvknight415
Explorer
I would vote for scrapping the prestige class concept completely and just using feats to specialize core classes.
Eric
Eric
The Trend from Prestige to Base
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
CrimsonWineGlass
First Post
I guess everything can be improved, but I personally actually like the PrC system. Some aspects don't make sense, but I guess we are also dealing with a world where the center of gravity can be altered. Some of the PrC's are not balances, some of the core classes are unbalanced, but there are still quite a few out there. There are so many aspects of the game that don't make sense but it meshes together to make it enjoyable. If I don't like a PrC or a core class I replace it or alter it. Makes it simpler.
Davelozzi
Explorer
A lot of my thoughts have already been summed up pretty well by delericho, Psion, and others, but there's one thing I wanted to expand on.
Several folks have stipulated that they think base classes should be fairly broad in concept. Likewise, to me at least, the name should be something pretty easily recognizable by most people, not something that feels like it was made up just for the game. Fighter, wizard, and the basics are all fine, as are swashbuckler, scout, and knight (if folks playing Oriental games want to call their knights samurais and change them a bit fine, but at least knight means something to everyone). But names like beguiler, duskblade, hexblade, favored soul, etc just don't do it for me, they feel too contrived - fine for a prestige or advanced class, but just not a meaningful enough concept for a base class.
Several folks have stipulated that they think base classes should be fairly broad in concept. Likewise, to me at least, the name should be something pretty easily recognizable by most people, not something that feels like it was made up just for the game. Fighter, wizard, and the basics are all fine, as are swashbuckler, scout, and knight (if folks playing Oriental games want to call their knights samurais and change them a bit fine, but at least knight means something to everyone). But names like beguiler, duskblade, hexblade, favored soul, etc just don't do it for me, they feel too contrived - fine for a prestige or advanced class, but just not a meaningful enough concept for a base class.
delericho
Legend
Davelozzi said:
In an ideal world, I would agree with you. However, when the classes are broad and distinct, and not too specific to our world (specifically, Samurai and Ninja are each closely associated with our own history), you rapidly run out of good names to use.
So, although I would have preferred Mageblade to Duskblade (although I guess they had good reasons for not using it), both are made up names just for the game. I can't think of a good descriptive name that isn't. 'Mystic Warrior' perhaps, but that's getting rather verbose, don't you think?
delericho
Legend
Regarding Prestige Classes
I'm not a fan of a lot of the existing D&D prestige classes. A lot of them exist purely to provide a "Class X with a bit more Class Feature Y" (such as the Shifter), or to plug mechanical holes that would be better just being fixed (such as the Mystic Theurge etc), and there are far too many arcane and divine spellcaster PrCs that have "+1 caster level" at every level and some very desirable class features - such classes are almost universally overpowered.
However, I have been won over by the concept of Prestige Classes - they are a great way to add detail to a campaign world, and to model advanced characters with special capabilities that are not easy done with feats. Roles like the Dwarven Defender, the Elven Bladesinger, the Champion of Gruumsh, and so on, are ideal candidates for Prestige Classes. (The thing that really won me over was the range of PrCs in the Star Wars d20 game. With the exception of the Jedi classes, these universally impressed me greatly.)
I would prefer that they adjust the requirements a bit. At present, the PrCs all have an optimal path (or paths) that lead to the class. Effectively, these requirements prevent a character from entering the class until a given character level (a BAB requirement of +5 means you need at least 5 character levels before entering the class, for example). The classes are then balanced assuming that a character enters the class at that lowest possible level, meaning that if you're aiming for the class with an 'odd' progression, you're taking a (possibly big) hit in effectiveness. Additionally, it makes most characters entering a given PrC extremely similar, since most of them will have used near-optimal progressions. (Finally, it means you can't play your character and then choose to head for a PrC without a big mechanical hit, since it's almost always best to plan your PrC from 1st level.)
The basic upshot of all of this is that I would like to see the requirements generally reduced (slightly), but with an additional "Minimum Character Level" requirement. (So, instead of having BAB +5, the class might have BAB +3 and Minimum Character Level 5.) The trick here is to maintain the flavour of the classes, while retaining balance, and allowing a bit more flexibility.
I can, of course, see the other argument - that near-optimal characters will be the only ones who will generally enter a PrC precisely because those are the ones likely to aim themselves in that direction/be accepted. But, on balance, I think I (marginally) prefer the more varied characters. (Oh, and I'm aware I can do the work to 'fix' the issue to my own taste - it's not exactly hard
)
I'm not a fan of a lot of the existing D&D prestige classes. A lot of them exist purely to provide a "Class X with a bit more Class Feature Y" (such as the Shifter), or to plug mechanical holes that would be better just being fixed (such as the Mystic Theurge etc), and there are far too many arcane and divine spellcaster PrCs that have "+1 caster level" at every level and some very desirable class features - such classes are almost universally overpowered.
However, I have been won over by the concept of Prestige Classes - they are a great way to add detail to a campaign world, and to model advanced characters with special capabilities that are not easy done with feats. Roles like the Dwarven Defender, the Elven Bladesinger, the Champion of Gruumsh, and so on, are ideal candidates for Prestige Classes. (The thing that really won me over was the range of PrCs in the Star Wars d20 game. With the exception of the Jedi classes, these universally impressed me greatly.)
I would prefer that they adjust the requirements a bit. At present, the PrCs all have an optimal path (or paths) that lead to the class. Effectively, these requirements prevent a character from entering the class until a given character level (a BAB requirement of +5 means you need at least 5 character levels before entering the class, for example). The classes are then balanced assuming that a character enters the class at that lowest possible level, meaning that if you're aiming for the class with an 'odd' progression, you're taking a (possibly big) hit in effectiveness. Additionally, it makes most characters entering a given PrC extremely similar, since most of them will have used near-optimal progressions. (Finally, it means you can't play your character and then choose to head for a PrC without a big mechanical hit, since it's almost always best to plan your PrC from 1st level.)
The basic upshot of all of this is that I would like to see the requirements generally reduced (slightly), but with an additional "Minimum Character Level" requirement. (So, instead of having BAB +5, the class might have BAB +3 and Minimum Character Level 5.) The trick here is to maintain the flavour of the classes, while retaining balance, and allowing a bit more flexibility.
I can, of course, see the other argument - that near-optimal characters will be the only ones who will generally enter a PrC precisely because those are the ones likely to aim themselves in that direction/be accepted. But, on balance, I think I (marginally) prefer the more varied characters. (Oh, and I'm aware I can do the work to 'fix' the issue to my own taste - it's not exactly hard
)
GuardianLurker
Adventurer
delericho said:
On point #2 : I agree. Which of course means that the bard, druid, monk, paladin, and ranger go.
On point #4: sufficiently broad, in my mind, means that you can build other concepts by multiclassing two or more base classes; the bard, for instance, is an instantiation of rogue/wizard (with some flavor tweaks), an both the paladin and ranger are fighter/clerics. Having said that, I'm not against semi-base classes - base classes that optimize/combine a very common build.
On point #5: That's where things start getting slippy - is the Berserker/Barbarian sufficiently different from a Fighter that you wouldn't want to emulate it as a tree? How about Swashbuckler?
If WotC is going to go down this road, which I think is a good one, they could do a lot worse than look at Rolemaster's class relationships. (Rolemaster has other problems, but there's a lot of sound theory in there too.)
Rolemaster break classes down into "realms", and the proportion a class mixes those realms, as well as the role each class fills within the realm.
For instance, assuming the realms are Arms, Divine, Arcane, and Psionics, and using 3e classes :
Realm of Arms: (pure/tank) Fighter, (pure/unarmed) Monk, (pure/mobile) Swashbuckler, (pure/ranged) *unfilled*, (pure/berserker) Barbarian, (semi-divine) Paladin or Ranger, (semi-arcane) Warmage, (semi-psionic) Psychic Warrior
Realm of Skills: (pure) Rogue or Expert, (semi-arms) Scout, (semi-arcane) Bard, (semi-divine) *unfilled*, (semi-psionics) Lurk
Realm of Divine: (pure/deity-worshipper) Cleric, (pure/animist) Spirt Shaman or Druid, (semi-arcane) *unfilled*, (semi-psionic) Ardent
Realm of Arcane: (pure) Wizard, (semi-psionic) *unfilled*, (semi-arcane) Bard
Realm of Psionics: (pure) Psion
You may also want to add the distinction between Spontaneous and Prepared casters, in which case:
Realm of Divine: (pure/spontaneous) Favored Soul
Realm of Arcane: (pure/spontaneous) Sorceror
Realm of Psionics: (pure/prepared) Erudite
Personally, it think Monte's AE classes do a better job at many of those slots: Warmain over Fighter, Oathsworn over Monk, Unfettered over Swashbuckler, Mageblade over Warmage.
Basically, you design your class matrix with orthagonal categories for your base classes; anything above that, or more specialized, you make a PrC or Feat/Talent-tree based on how much it diverges from the main concept. The Realms and roles breakdown is variable to some degree. There may not be a whole lot of difference between mobiled and ranged Arms, for instance, and you could argue for a Realm of Skills. And the role division is certainly varied. But the basic point remains the same.
Actually the optimal path vs sub-optimal path progressions of Prestige classes kind of make sense, even in real life people with a plan tend to get what they want faster than those who don't. Two highschool graduates who go to the same colledge, one knows exactly what he wants to do after he graduates, and does nothing but work towards that goal, while the other has no clue and changes his major 3 times and winds up graduating 2 years later.
On that note, way too many base classes, something like 130+ official D&D base classes (62+ base with rest being variants, but not substitution levels), that's way to many. The problem with base classes in my opinion, is most players feel they are entitiled to base classes, while most players (by no means all though) understand that prestige classes are optional.
Before magic of Incarnum, I had 40 base classes I allowed in my game, now I am raising that cap to 50, with 5 of the additional 10 slots taken, with the other 5 reamaing free for now.
Instead of base classes why not just introduce a new kind of prestige class. They already have the five and 10 level prestige class, why not a 15 level advanced class, prestige class, that can be taken around third level with an optimal path. This is how I have handled base classes that were to narrowly defined from the begining, such as the Archer and Cavalier (although I orginally only had them as 10 level prestige classes, but still accessible at third).
Heck before they even made 3.5 people were complaining about the number of prestige classes, at what point will they start complaining about the number of base classes when they reach 100+. We should see about three or four more of the specialty sorcerers coming down the pipeline, plus at least three classes in Complete adventurer.
On that note, way too many base classes, something like 130+ official D&D base classes (62+ base with rest being variants, but not substitution levels), that's way to many. The problem with base classes in my opinion, is most players feel they are entitiled to base classes, while most players (by no means all though) understand that prestige classes are optional.
Before magic of Incarnum, I had 40 base classes I allowed in my game, now I am raising that cap to 50, with 5 of the additional 10 slots taken, with the other 5 reamaing free for now.
Instead of base classes why not just introduce a new kind of prestige class. They already have the five and 10 level prestige class, why not a 15 level advanced class, prestige class, that can be taken around third level with an optimal path. This is how I have handled base classes that were to narrowly defined from the begining, such as the Archer and Cavalier (although I orginally only had them as 10 level prestige classes, but still accessible at third).
Heck before they even made 3.5 people were complaining about the number of prestige classes, at what point will they start complaining about the number of base classes when they reach 100+. We should see about three or four more of the specialty sorcerers coming down the pipeline, plus at least three classes in Complete adventurer.
Wik
First Post
delericho said:
I just want to hit on this particular point quickly, because there's something a lot of people overlook.
"barbarians" received their name from the Greeks, who were making a pun on the language of those outside of the "civilized world" - they figured their language just repeated the word "bar" too often, so they called outsiders "bar-bars" or "barbarians" in English. So, by the Greek standards, the Celts, Germans, Huns, Cimmerians, Turks (whatever they were called at the time...) Hittites... they were ALL barbarians. So, while the name itself relates to one specific, western culture, the term wasn't applied to any one specific group. And there are plenty of westernized ideas in 3e besides the barbarians - "wizards", "bards", and "druids" are all based off western words, and "monk" is most culturally tied to eastern societies.
By contrast, "Berserkers" received their name from the Vikings, whose warriors went into battle wearing bear-skin armour. "sark", the word for "shirt" or "armour" in one viking language or another, meant that these warriors were called "Bear-sarks". Our term for "berserk" (an old english term, which probably relates to the fact that England got hammered heavily by viking raiding parties) comes from the fact that these "bear-sark" warriors went a little wild on their raids.
So, really, by abandoning the term "barbarian" (Which applies to numerous groups throughout Europe), in favour of "Berserker" (which historically only applied to ONE specific group) isn't moving towards a more culturally-neutral tone, but is in fact moving away from that tone.
Anyways, great arguments here... this is just one of those little things I have to nitpick on.
Garnfellow
Explorer
Wik said:
You are right on about the historical derivations of barbarian and berserker, but in contemporary useage the terms have significantly changed in meaning. The word barbarian very strongly connotes someone from a savage or primative society, or someone who resembles such a person. People hear the word barbarian and depending on the situation either imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger in a loincloth, or think of someone uncultured or ill-mannered.
Berserker, in contrast, has lost almost all connection to its original meaning except amongst RPG players. It has become a rather generic term for a fanatic or someone prone to violent outbursts.
