The Trend from Prestige to Base

[delericho]

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.

I don't disagree it makes sense, but in real life we rarely have the opportunity to plan out our whole lives from level 1 to 20, selecting each class as we do so (well, perhaps we do, but circumstances tend to change our minds). D&D players can plot out their characters' full progressions, and seem less prone to changing directions.

But the principle I would be getting at is this: if the game forces a player to accept a significant mechanical deficit in return for a mechanically 'interesting' character, the game will see significantly fewer mechanically interesting characters. And I'd rather see characters gaining all the prerequisites for their PrC of choice in 4 levels, and then having 2 'spare' levels to put into offbeat choices if they so wish than have the PrC require a specific combination of 6 base class levels, meaning the members of the PrC will almost all have the same six 'intro' levels before joining the PrC.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not entirely convinced that taking a PrC "later" is a bad thing. Many of the advantages of a PrC are not base class level specific, if you follow me. Take Mystic Theuge for example. Yes, I can do MT at 7th level, and it works. However, if I do it at 8th or 10th level, it doesn't suddenly become less powerful. If I decide to go 6th cleric, 3rd wizard/1 MT, I'm not disadvantaged to the Cleric 3/Wiz 3/MT 4. Yes, I have less wizard spells, but, I have more cleric spells and better hit points and BaB and other goodies.

The same is true for Eldritch Knight, for another example. Whether I do EK at 7th or at 12th, it still provides the same bonuses.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm sure there are PrC's out there that suffer if you take them later, but, IMHO, this is the exception, not the rule. Many PRC's are not so limited that they disadvantage a character if they are not taken as soon as possible.

 

[delericho]

I'm not entirely convinced that taking a PrC "later" is a bad thing. Many of the advantages of a PrC are not base class level specific, if you follow me. Take Mystic Theuge for example. Yes, I can do MT at 7th level, and it works. However, if I do it at 8th or 10th level, it doesn't suddenly become less powerful. If I decide to go 6th cleric, 3rd wizard/1 MT, I'm not disadvantaged to the Cleric 3/Wiz 3/MT 4. Yes, I have less wizard spells, but, I have more cleric spells and better hit points and BaB and other goodies.

Actually, both characters have the casting ability of a 7th level Cleric. You're right about the BAB, hit points, Fort save, and ability to turn undead, though.

The same is true for Eldritch Knight, for another example. Whether I do EK at 7th or at 12th, it still provides the same bonuses.

It does, but your other classes probably do not. However, in both the cases cited, the PrCs in question exist to shore up otherwise weak combinations, specifically addressing the multiclass spellcaster problem.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm sure there are PrC's out there that suffer if you take them later, but, IMHO, this is the exception, not the rule. Many PRC's are not so limited that they disadvantage a character if they are not taken as soon as possible.

It's true that I haven't done an exhaustive search of the available PrCs

My gut feeling is that a character who is built from 1st level to take the most direct route to his PrC of choice (and thereafter has progressed exclusively in his PrC) is probably a bit more powerful than a character who has taken a more circuitous route to get there (at the same character level). It's probably not a huge difference in most cases, and only really significant when dealing with fairly optimised builds, though.

 

[delericho]

The Blackguard

One PrC in particular that irks me is the Blackguard. This is a class that, on the face of it, is designed to ideally suits former Paladins. The only problem is that the requirements are such that it's actually hard for a former paladin to qualify. Ranks in Hide are not something that most Paladins are likely to take, since they mesh really badly with heavy armour. Likewise, I'm not sure about the feat requirements - some former Paladins might have them, but Improved Sunder in particular strikes me as unlikely.

Basically, it feels like for a Paladin to become a Blackguard, you need one of two things:

1) For the character to have been designed from level 1 to become the Blackguard (which makes mechanical sense, but very little in-game sense). (A Paladin can get 5 ranks in Hide at 7th level - but only by either maxing out the skill from 1st level or by spending a huge portion of his skill points at higher levels.)

2) For the former Paladin to take a few level dip into Fighter and a 1-level dip into Rogue to pick up the skills and feats he now needs to qualify. This seems like a lot of effort for something that feels like it should be easy.

However, in this case, I suspect a better set of requirements might be:

Alignment: Any Evil
BAB: +6
Skills: Knowledge (religion) 3 ranks
Special: The character must have made peaceful contact with an evil outsider who was summoned by him or someone else.
Special: The character must have (or have had in the past) the ability to Turn or Rebuke Undead.

 

[Hussar]

Just going back to the idea of optimal speed for PrC's.

If that were true, then multiclassing in DnD would always be a weaker choice. If taking another class after your first was a poor choice (poor being defined as a choice which makes a weaker character) then dipping a level would never be a good choice. Whether you do that dip from a core class or a PrC, it should always be a weaker choice.

This is not true IMO.

 

[delericho]

If that were true, then multiclassing in DnD would always be a weaker choice. If taking another class after your first was a poor choice (poor being defined as a choice which makes a weaker character) then dipping a level would never be a good choice. Whether you do that dip from a core class or a PrC, it should always be a weaker choice.

Maybe. My feeling is that 'dipping' is a very poor choice for certain base classes (any spellcaster), but okay for some others. I am also pretty sure it becomes a less attractive option the further you progress in your main class (so, a Rogue 4 is more likely to dip into Ranger than a Rogue 14, for example). I might well be wrong about that.

My experience with PrCs is that every player I've seen has selected his PrC at 1st level, and then built his character to get into that PrC as quickly as possible. There were two assumptions behind this:

1) A character had to have a PrC to remain competitive.
2) You're taking a hit on effectiveness by selecting anything other than the optimal path.

This, of course, means that all members of a given PrC have exactly the same set of skills, feats, or whatever - the optimal path tends not to leave a lot of room for other character customisations.

It's entirely possible that my players were wrong about #2. I'm pretty sure they were wrong about #1. However, I would prefer it if neither were true - although I'm uncertain whether that means a change should be made to the game or not.

It's worth noting that I have no problems with a character taking a PrC (or even multiple PrCs). I don't even mind if every character takes a PrC, if that's what the players want to do. But I do dislike the notion that you have to take a PrC, and have to take it as soon as possible.

I'll also readily accept that my experience with PrCs is far from universal.

 

[GQuail]

I'll also readily accept that my experience with PrCs is far from universal.

As with all things, it depends on your group In my current group, most of the players are relative D&D newbies so prestige classes weren't really looked at earlier on: only now, at 10th level, are two players going to take their first levels. Meanwhile, I know two players who insist on planning out every character from 1st to 20th level, and send me their latest crazy builds to look at.

Certainly, players can choose to focus on a PrC from day one, and those who do so will indeed usually pick the same route to X prestige class: most classes are clearly designed for one class or two in paticular to use, after all, so it's not really that surprising. Plus, even without PrCs some players are just the kind who like to map out their "perfect advancement": I think it's a bit silly myself, but I do know that the carrot on the stick of "next level's choices" is a big part of the D&D experience for most players, so I guess that's just an extreme version of that. Perhaps older D&D games this phenomenon was less pronounced, since it's only with 3.0 that you've had such a dearth of choices in what each level can have your character doing.

In my own game I've semi-adpoted the UA rules for "join a prestige class via a test, not prerequisite": I still reccomend the players take them before trying, and anyone who wants to start with a PrC has to take them all, but in game if they can get membership with a Guild of Assassins, Loremaster Coven or Shadowdancer Troupe, then go them. Blackguards without hide or improved sunder can exist, but since their entrance tests entail both those skills, they'll have to deal with them alternately: sundering and sneaking in an inexperienced way, or perhaps using magic to deal with the tasks, or what have you. I feel that solves the problem of 1st level PCs feeling obliged to dedicate feats for their PrC, whilst still letting players who want a PrC be able to pick it up and have fun doing so.

 

[Estlor]

Ideally, I have no problem with both prestige classes and base classes existing alongside each other in D&D. What I think happened was a lack of focus in defining what a base class "is" and what a prestige class "is".

IMHO, a good base class fills a broad (note I said BROAD, not GENERIC) achetype in the D&D game. A prestige class should represent a niche in one of these achetypes (or a niche represented by a mixing of archetypes) that cannot otherwise be attained just from multiclassing.

Let's say, for example, D&D 4e took this to heart. You might see base classes like this:
Fighter - skilled combatant who uses weapons
Rogue - clever, intelligent, and skillful that relies on wits and reflexes
Cleric - priestly warrior of a god or ethos
Druid - shamanistic/Totemic nature priest
Mage - student of arcane magic
Scout - mobile woodsman and skirmisher
Holy Warrior - devout combatant whose powers derive from their alignment
Martial Artist - skilled combatant who does not use weapons

Then you go about defining "prestige" (better to say "advanced") classes that further specialize in some aspect of a base class, giving up breadth of abilities for strength in a single aspect. Some of these advanced classes that a Fighter could easily reach might be things like Duelist, Gladiator, Berserker, and Weapon Master.

Since most prestige classes are 10th level, a good idea is to shoot for most classes having the option to take them around 7th to 10th level, with someone following the "optimal" build getting to it around 5th.

 

[SSquirrel]

Likewise, I'm not sure about the feat requirements - some former Paladins might have them, but Improved Sunder in particular strikes me as unlikely.

I dunno, Imp Sunder could be great for a Paladin.

*Paladin shatters opponents weapon* "Now that I have destroyed your weapon, will you yield? I have no desire to slay an unarmed foe, but if you give me no choice I will as you must be stopped"

Makes for lots of RPing opportunities

 

[Blue Sky]

I'm all for both base and prestige classes. I think that it brings several more options to the table as to how a player wants to build his character. It also means that just because someone in the game casts a certain spell, or takes a certain action, that you can't just say that they are a certain class.