The Worst Prestige Class Awards

[Humanophile]

I think that I am starting to agree with you...

IMHO, in general, kits are better than PrCs. (Not all kits, though.) I like the kit concept, but not how most of the kits were handled, mostly with regards to balance. I don't like the prestige class system very much at all, though.

...But maybe I'm just old-school...

/me leaves to think some more.

I agree partway, and I think it'd be ideal if 3e weren't as burned by some of the horrible kit ideas from before. The problem with kits is that there are certain ideas that revolve around being well trained and compotent before you can have your foot in the door, while there are other things that you should be from first level on, when you can least afford the feats and skill points needed to "customize". In a perfect world, you'd have both.

But I've always been a proponent of someone actually filling out the info that the PHB and DMG each give half a nod and proceed to ignore. Kits are just class modification templates made easy, and for things that you should be right out of apprenticeship (court mage instead of the bookish standard, a lightly armored bareback riding amazon, archer-rangers, and non-battle clerics for a few easy ideas). Prestige classes, OTOH, are for the things like ninjas or bladesingers or rarefied archmages that only accept you when you've proven yourself "worthy" of their teachings. Neither alone can really cover all the options you'd want.

 

[Ace]

*ConcreteBuddha flips through the various supplements he has purchased.*

I racked my brain, trying to figure out the worst PrC. I flipped through all the class books and random other sources and I came to this conclusion:

I hate PrCs.

As a DM, PrCs are a pain. This is what happens to me:


. *Concrete Buddha crosses his fingers and hopes that the Epic Level Handbook is good.*

I am with you on this one. PRC's are banned from my game. I do offer some prestige feats to simulate PRC abilities and a few more class specializations like my Sorcerer lineage specilizations so the number of options is still there without all the shoehorning.

Squirrel Disciple, LOL thats actually sounds like a god PRC idea. Get limbrunning, nut related powerz, speak with squirrels, Teleport to Nutkin land....
HMM

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"you also decide what prestige classes should be allowed."
--hong

It's not that I believe that certain PrCs don't fit the setting, or that specific ones go against my campaign vision.

I don't like prestige classes. The very idea of a prestige class bothers me. I don't feel that a character should have to be a L10 Fighter/ L3 Lasher to be a master with whips. I don't think there is an entire group of casters with the Elemental Savant class (or any PrC) tacked on. High level characters are rare enough.

I believe there is a better way of handling guild memberships, specializations and cultures within the system already presented without having to multiclass obscure PrCs. I already use a variation of the "prestige feats" and guild specific spells that Ace alluded to. I like the idea of having certain "kit templates" available depending on culture and background (as long as they are more for flavor than number bonuses).

I like the idea of a 13th level fighter who specialized in whips. I like the idea of a 17th level wizard who specializes in fire magic. I don't like the way PrCs handle these characters. I don't think it is necessary to assign a PrC to every variation possible in a character.

I think half of the PrCs out there could be viable feat chains or spells and the other half could be mimicked by multiclassing with the 11 basic classes. (The other half don't exist.)
.
.
.
P.S. The reason why I feel like banning PrCs is a copout is because every product in existence uses them as a way of filling their pages. PrCs are not a variant, IMHO, because every publisher assumes that DnD players are using them. DMs are really not given the choice on whether or not to use PrCs because they are prevalent in all supplemental material as the only way to handle guild memberships, cultures and expertise.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

What I'd like to see more, would be interesting, original and powerful prestige classes.

I don't appreciate game balance in certain level of creative thinking, since it seems to make people re-create same thing after same thing keeping normal character classes balance in mind.

This is good, but it also sucks big-time. There are almost always weak preq-feats, that seem to be there only for reason 'go away power-gamer' (toughness and the like). And in many case, they don't seem to exist for any in-game reason, though I can logic in any crap I like, of course.

Some so called prestige classes would also work better as variations of base-class.

I hate feat-chains, especially when some publisher, "ah so creativily", creates a new one, that doesn't at worst case use anything from base rules as starting basis. 'So, how unlimited number of feats we did have again' is something I always think when seeing this.

Also, there are few 'what they were thinking' classes like 'Hospitaler', that have interesting rule-loops for every min-maxer who cares for such.

I don't like class power coming from loop-holes.

Also, if some prestige class allows character to enter at 10th level earliest, I think that organization/group/whatever should give character something worth wanting. If that balances as win some-loose some with original class, I might consider it good, if it had something original (and not just something, that can be gained through feats or 'normal' multiclassing).

Class like 'Dragon Disicpline', which through interesting idea, is complitely pointless (why not just make half-dragon in the first place, if dm allows).

And my personal bias are classes created for both sorcerers and wizards, without keeping in mind sorcerer only gets knowledge (arcane) as class skill, and no bonus-metamagic feats either, and new spells levels later to boot.

I didn't put my point out very well. My 'I want more powerful Prc:s'- bias comes from fact that Prc:s appear to be something you can only access at higher levels. Such characters are not naive kiddies anymore, so why would they ever want to become something they gain very little for at that point.

Specialization should be made at character creation, or during first 3 levels. There was valid point in that in 2nd edition kits.

I also have suspension of disbelief-problem with, let's say, 'secret order of assassins' who supposingly train theri members from young age (or so one would think), but actually, their lowest ranking members are 11th level characters.

Weaponmaster is pointless-feat-chain-hell type character.

I agree with somebody who said core D&D was made with levels 1-12 in mind. I guess that's why D&D vision of high level play is so uncertain and often mishandled.

I don't hold my breath for epic rules either, though never know.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I hate PrCs.

As a DM, PrCs are a pain. This is what happens to me:

Player #1: "I want to play a Fighter who grows up to be a Chibby Chub from the S&F!"

Me: "Okay, but you are level 1. You have never seen a Chibby Chub. You have no idea what the requirements are to be a Chibby Chub. You do not have a clue how to become a Chibby Chub."

Then I think to myself, "Dang, now I have to make up an organization, culture or guild that churns out Chibby Chubs. And at just the right moment, at around level 6 or 7, a high powered Chibby Chub has to find the PC and train him in the HIGH ART OF CHIBBY CHUBBING!"

"High leveled NPCs are pretty rare. Exactly how many Chibby Chubs are there in the world? And wouldn't this PrC be better represented by feats? I mean why can't a Fighter take Improved Weapon Specialization (Whip) instead of being a Lasher?"

I have to say that I 100% disagree. I LOVE PrCs.

And I think you are greatly over complicating things. Not every PrC needs a guild that churns them out. Why can't a character who is practicing a certain focus just simply get better at that focus? This is the way it seems to me to occur in fantasy fiction.

If a Fighter 1 wants to become a chibby chub at level 7, he should start working towards it now. His behavior and combat style should tend to be like a chibby chub in training. Over the course of the next several levels he gets better at fighting and at being like a chibby chub. This includes gaining the skills and feats that are prereqs for the class. Eventually, by level 7, the character has mastered the basic chub skills and gains the abilities of a L1 chibby chub.

 

[zouron]

Well I think there are a few PrC out there that shouldn't have been created at all, but in general I actually like PrCs. On that note the only one I have had as a player was the wayfarer guide and I loved it heh possibly not the most powerful but definately a different PrC.

I think many PrCs come into their full glory in certain types of campaigns while others they wouldn't work for. So I would point any out that I really dislike/like here.

There is though a few I dislike due to balance problems and the fact they seem to go against the concept of not belonging to just one class of characters.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Axiomatic Unicorn--


1) I do not believe I am "overcomplicating things". PrCs, IMHO, require some form of training. They do not spontaneously appear in a level 7 character.

Read the description of a PrC in the DMG: "Additionally, the character must meet nonrule-related requirements in-game, such as group membership fees, special training exercises, quests and so forth." pg. 27

The above tells me that there has to be a group of other Chibby Chubs who accept new members and train the character in the secret lore of being a Chibby Chub.
.
.
2) The level 1 character who says, "I want to be a Chibby Chub!", puts unneeded work on the DM to create a group of Chibby Chubs while the PCs are only level 1. For someone who does not believe that most PrCs are balanced and/or functional, (i.e. Arcane Archer) and does not use a published campaign setting, this is an added level of complexity when most of my already limited time should be spent on making an adventure for the party at level 1.
.
.
3) If a Fighter wants to be a Whip Specialist at level 7, what is the difference if said character stays as a Fighter and takes whip related feats, some of them whip-specific? You can still call that character a Lasher, but from a game perspective, he is a 7th level Fighter. Why can I not tweak with the Fighter class exclusively for that character's specialty and give the character the same types of bonuses without that character actually gaining a new class?
.
.
4) I dislike the fact that not one single character stays as a single class character or even a consistent PHB multiclass character in a long term campaign. I have never seen a 20th level Fighter. I feel that most characters are "mush", as hong so aptly named it.
.
.
5) I realize that characters receive a limited amount of feats. I am a proponent that feats taken at higher levels should be worth more than feats taken at lower levels. Spells work that way already. At level 15, your feat selection should not be limited to the same feats that a level 1 character can choose. New feat chains fail to see this point.

Example: A feat that combined Supreme Cleave and Supreme Mobility (both from the Master Samurai PrC) into one feat would not be balanced at level 1, but at level 15, this is acceptable. Especially when it's requirements are a +15 BAB, Mobility and Great Cleave.

When I mention feat chains, I do not mean to imitate the present low level Power Attack/Dodge chains. I mean to evolve the idea of these chains to the level of high end gaming, which they so deservedly need.
.
.
6) I'm happy that you love PrCs. I hate PrCs. I am attempting to explain my reasons for hating them. Please explain your reasons for liking them. Then we may have some common ground to work with.

 

[jasamcarl]

Yeah...

And none of those points are rational; just to reiterate your argument, you dislike prestige classes because you get some type of joy out of seeing a mono-class read such as wiz20? This is the mindset which I often see on boards and which i abhor. You believe the rules should have their own aesthetic, as oppossed to simply allowing for consistent in-game task resolution. Bah!!!

1) WHY would a prestige class have to be attached to some organization?

2) WHY can't you simply accept them as what they are; a modular, late game variant for certain core classes?

3) WHY do you distinguish between the effect of feats and skills and class, not on any rational balance argument, but on some romantic meta-game notion of liberation? If you want flexibility the former is to be preferred, if you want balance/specialization prcs more than have a place at the table.

3a) WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE BOTH FEAT/SKILLS and Prcs that allow pushes characters into the same niche, only to differnt degrees?

 

[Crothian]

I like and use prestige classes. So, I';m going to try to offer my reasons that are along the opposite pole from yours.

1) Having groups of prestige classes helps populate the world. It adds NPCs and having the character seek them out for training gives a a little more personal direction. It allows the character to work towards something concreate. Also, having a character take time and money to train is something I always like.

2) Okay, when level one characters say they want to be a certain prestige class, I then think how this particuliar group fitsinto the world, or even if they do. When the PC says he is working toward Arcane archer, or whatever I can tell him if it's allowed or not. Then I can say that there is a school that you know of at such and such, or that he's heard rumors and stories from the east of these people. I don't have to come up with it all right then and there. I can create bread crumbs and make the character seek out and find this group and then role play a session of him earning his right to be trained by them.

3) A fighter can be a whip specialist. You can easily take the Lashers abilities and get them through multi classing or make them feats. THere is nothing wrong with this at all. Even with prestige classes, I've had characters want to take this route. Choices are good.

4) Haven't seen long term core characters? Interesting. I've seen Cleric, Ranger, and Barbarian straight classes up to 15 and beyond. I've seen Fighter/rogues and Rogue /sorcerers. In the current game, the bard has 4 levels of lasher and 13 of Bard. The rest of his levels are going into Bard. Personally, I think as long as the character concept stands up to all this multi classing, then I don't care how many classes a character has.

5) I'm in big favor of higher and more powerful feat chains.

6) Those are some of the reasons I like them. I'm happy with them, but by all means hate them with great venom. THere are other parts of the game that I really hate, that others don't.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Crothian--

Thank you for replying to my post in a civilized manner. I am glad we can at least see each others point of view without having to resort to flaming attacks.

1) I specifically like the idea that PrCs are concrete. A player can say, "I'm a L8 Fighter/L2 Chibby Chub", which is more concrete than "I'm a L10 Fighter who specializes in whips." That player can also look to a guild of high level characters and say, "That group is a bunch of Knights of the Blah." That is a good point.

2) True, it is not necessary to completely flesh out the guilds in question at level 1. However, I feel that there is a lack of emphasis on the actual group these random PrCs belong to, than on the number of bonuses said character gets for gaining the class.

When a player comes up to me and says, "I want to play a Deepwood Sniper, do you have them in your campaign?", it has less to do with guild membership and character concept, than gaining the improved critical abiltity or poison use. I have no way of knowing if those abilities are balanced with the main classes.

I would rather use the standard 11 and tweak those, than have to balance the hundreds of PrCs out there with the standard classes.

3) I do not mind if other people use PrCs, or even love them ecstatically. I am just trying to show why I dislike them, and why it is okay, in general, to not like them. Thank you for explaining to me why you like them.
.
.
.
.
jasamcarl---

Rationality does not necessarily equal Good, IMHO.

"just to reiterate your argument, you dislike prestige classes because you get some type of joy out of seeing a mono-class read such as wiz20?"

Please do not put words in my mouth. Please do not reiterate my argument in a flaming, retalitory manner.

"This is the mindset which I often see on boards and which i abhor."

Neat. Go on abhorring all day long that people have different mindsets than you. Maybe you might begin to understand that people have opinions, and that they should be allowed to share them without being ridiculed or mocked. If you disagree with an opinion, fine: but BE NICE!

"You believe the rules should have their own aesthetic, as oppossed to simply allowing for consistent in-game task resolution. Bah!!!"

No, I believe that the use of a PrC is NOT a "consistent in-game (tool for) task resolution." I think that is my entire point.

1) Why would a prestige class NOT be attached to some organization?

2) Why CAN you accept them as what they are; a modular, late game variant for certain core classes?

3) Why do you distinguish between the effect of feats and skills and class, not on a real-world, in-game experience, but on a rational balance theory? If you want flexibility the latter is to be preferred, if you want a GOOD game, in my humble experience , PrCs are a waste of time.

3a) Why DO you have both feats and skills, AND Prcs that allow characters into the same niche?
.
.
.