Thoughts on Prestige Classes and Feats

[Whisper72]

On many places on this and other fora, I see people who are ecstatic about this new feat or that other prestige class. Whole web-pages seem to be devoted to the production of new feats and classes, and the content of many commercially produced 'campaign aids' and other forms of 'accessories' consist for a large percentage of those same prestige classes and feats.

At the same time, you hear people going on about the need for more focus on role playing versus roll playing and aversion for min/maxers, the threat of CRPGs versus tabletop gaming, the lack of soul in the new DnD editions vis-a-vis 1st edition (A)DND etc. etc.

Am I missing something here, or do others share my feelings:

To my view there is no need for more classes beyond the original ones in the core rules books. All the rest is putting roles that should come about by playing and adequate player and DM judgement and adjudication into numbers in stead.

It is the very proliferation of feats and classes which almost forces people to min/max and approach the game from a very mechanic/mechanistic, ruleslayerish and CRPG-like way where you build your PC not through roleplaying, but throught 'engineering' the 'correct' or 'appropriate' PrC's, feats etc. into your PC to get the 'feel' you want.

'Bullocks' is my gut-reaction to this. The correct feel of the PC comes about by roleplaying in a certain way. If the focus of the whole group is to play the game for fun and by adhering to 'Character', then I do not need some feat to try to behead a monster. I can simply state what I try to do to the DM, and if I hit by a nice margin, the DM can adjudicate that I accomplished what I tried.

The whole trend of putting numbers and rules onto everything reduces the role of the DM. Indeed, with everything cast into rules that can be programmed, the whole game begins to look like a CRPG. It is the way the game is evolving itself that threatens to destroy the very creativity that it used to demand of players and DM's alike in the old editions. THAT is the very problem of the lack of 'soul' in the new editions.

Am I the only one who thinks so? Am I missing something here, and do I see things the wrong way?

An 'old-school' DM who still swears by only needing the DMG1, MM1 and PHB1 to have the most fun with (A)DnD

 

[kolvar]

Hey, what do you think! it is not easy to do one campaign-book after the other and splat-books and their ilk sell more copies anyway. What would be the reason behind d20 if not for feats and prcs?

I share your thoughts and think, that "going back to basics" can be fun. Why not play hackmaster? (that is not a fun-question!!!!)
Alas, I like developing houserules and therefor create my own feats and prcs constantly. They can be a great way to entice players to do one or the other, because they want this advantage or that game-feeling to their character. They can be an instrument to personalize a campaign. But only if used sparingly and with the best of the campaign and the players in mind. To be honest, playing a fighter in 1st edition on higher levels became a bit boring, because the development was rather reduced to better and more attacks.

 

[Psion]

Am I missing something here, or do others share my feelings:

To my view there is no need for more classes beyond the original ones in the core rules books. All the rest is putting roles that should come about by playing and adequate player and DM judgement and adjudication into numbers in stead.

I don't share your feelings. And make no mistake, my hair is graying as well, and I started in my youth.

It may be all that is necessary. But I certainly think that classes and feats can help make the game more exotic and flavorful. I think it is precisely BECAUSE I am so well heeled in the game that I appreciate the variants that allow me to give the game a different spin.

It is the very proliferation of feats and classes which almost forces people to min/max and approach the game from a very mechanic/mechanistic, ruleslayerish and CRPG-like way where you build your PC not through roleplaying, but throught 'engineering' the 'correct' or 'appropriate' PrC's, feats etc. into your PC to get the 'feel' you want.

Feh. There have been min/maxers and mechanistic players in the game long before there were PrCs or feats. That's a symptom of players, not of the game.

'Bullocks' is my gut-reaction to this. The correct feel of the PC comes about by roleplaying in a certain way. If the focus of the whole group is to play the game for fun and by adhering to 'Character', then I do not need some feat to try to behead a monster. I can simply state what I try to do to the DM, and if I hit by a nice margin, the DM can adjudicate that I accomplished what I tried.

I thoroughly disagree. Sure, you can satisfy the need for neat moves in this manner. What you can't do is make different characters have distinct and interesting abilities that make them stand out from all the other fighters they or you have made. If every fighter can "behead foe", the game becomes a comedy, which is not what I am in it for.

Am I the only one who thinks so? Am I missing something here, and do I see things the wrong way?

Sure you are. Above you decry "proliferation" as the root cause of minmaxing. You just fail to notice (or rather, acknowledge; I find it hard to beleive you haven't noticed) that it has been there all along and you are looking for a scapegoat.

The thing to remember is that classes and feats are setpeices for the GM to make a world. You are under no obligation to use any of them, and you should use just the ones you need to make the game interesting. If that happens to mean the classes and feats in the core books, so be it. But there's nothing wrong with options, just with being too haphazard with their inclusion.

An 'old-school' DM who still swears by only needing the DMG1, MM1 and PHB1 to have the most fun with (A)DnD

An 'old-school' DM who is happy not to be stuck with the same.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm.. some interesting points you make.

First, I fully agree with you that max/min and munchkinism etc. are in first instance a player problem and not a rules problem.

I am not looking to put a blame for this type of behaviour onto the rules themselves as main scapegoat, merely wondering whether the abundant proliferation of rules for everyhting make min/maxing etc. further encourages this type of play then under the old system (IMHO the churning out of kits was the first step onto this road), and that players who now learn to play by the new rules are therefore _more_ confronted with all these rules and therefore almost 'pushed' towards the rules/min-max/munchkin type of 'rollplay' versus 'roleplay'. Naturally, the final responsibility of the type of game you get lies with the players and the DM.

As to the fighter being boring and not distinct by different abilities, that is exactly the point I am trying to make; WHY do I need different abilities stat-wise to be different? I am trying to say that trying to be different comes from _role_playing differently. The one fighter may be a 'rush in and bash' type PC, the other is wiley, avoids close combat, uses bows, oil etc. etc.

I am trying to say that the real difference can just as well come from simply having the PC do things differently, as opposed as having other attributes.

I am not saying that using different feats cannot be fun and rewarding, and that one way to play or the other is wrong, I am simply stating that to my mind there is a correlation between the new way of capturing things in rules and a certain type of play. Naturally it is up to the DM and the players what they do with the materials produced, but IMHO the new rules are putting _more emphasis_ on roll playing versus role playing, I agree with you that all styles of play are possible with all the various versions of the (A)Dnd rules...

 

[Dogbrain]

Actually, prestige classes and Feats AT ALL are just roll-playing. Indeed, why have levels or experience? That's just roll-playing. Numbers? They get in the way of roleplaying--they're all just roll-playing.

 

[Kaodi]

Prestige Classes

If I remember correctly, prestige classes were originally intended to be a roleplaying tool. If you were a member of X organisation, you may have a chance to take Y prestige class. However, since 3e came out, most Prestige Classes have devolved into something more akin to " advanced classes " . I think this may have something to do with the original prestige classes not having attachments to specific organizations or groups because they were supposed to be generic enough for DM's to play anywhere.
If you are DMing, you could require that Prestige Classes be only accesible through these kinds of conditions. Just my thoughts though.

 

[Altalazar]

I like new feats and classes and PrC for the flavor, not so much the powers.

I'm working on the equivalent of specialty priests in my world.

I put in other PrC I see based on what makes sense for the world.

I like having lots of different flavors to choose from - it certainly beats having every character be like every other.

 

[Crothian]

Prestige Classes and feats are a role playing tool. They can be used to help define a character and work toward a character goal. Sure a fighter can claim to be a cavalier from first level and he might have a decent ride skill and role play that all up. But compaired to a real Cavalier he's just another guy on a horse. With the added rules there are now in game ways of seperateing the pretenders from the contenders (I love Sportscenter ).

From what I've seen; people will game how they game dispite rules and other factors. Role players will role play, real men will be real men, munchkins will always pester and annoy, etc. The trick is to find a group with your gaming style.

 

[Planesdragon]

To my view there is no need for more classes beyond the original ones in the core rules books. All the rest is putting roles that should come about by playing and adequate player and DM judgement and adjudication into numbers in stead.

(Did you mean "instead", as in "rather than having a new class" or "in stead", aka "as the game goes on?" Oh, well.)

Prestige classes are a formalization of a concept that predates AD&D, and a modestly good one. There is a certain expection of "better classes" that can only be taken after some advancement in the game: OD&D had Paladins, AD&D 1e had Druids, and even 2nd edition still had Knights of Solamnia.

But you are right. PrCs are far too often seen not for what they represent, but for what they can do.

Luckilly, the answer for this is the same as for any other bit of dry numbers-based gaming: made actual role-playing a requirement of each PrC, don't allow PrCs that don't fit a niche in your game--and make every member of an organization that has a PrC have at least one level in that PrC.

IMC there are (so far) three groups that have PrCs, and aside from a basic competency that's better served by base classes, there aren't any more requirements than "be a member of X group."

(I also feel free to toss out "balance" with some of these PrCs. As far as I care, someone who gets into a PrC shouldn't have a major reason to NOT complete the class.)

It is the very proliferation of feats and classes which almost forces people to min/max and approach the game from a very mechanic/mechanistic, ruleslayerish and CRPG-like way where you build your PC not through roleplaying, but throught 'engineering' the 'correct' or 'appropriate' PrC's, feats etc. into your PC to get the 'feel' you want.

'Bullocks' is my gut-reaction to this. The correct feel of the PC comes about by roleplaying in a certain way. If the focus of the whole group is to play the game for fun and by adhering to 'Character', then I do not need some feat to try to behead a monster. I can simply state what I try to do to the DM, and if I hit by a nice margin, the DM can adjudicate that I accomplished what I tried.

The whole trend of putting numbers and rules onto everything reduces the role of the DM. Indeed, with everything cast into rules that can be programmed, the whole game begins to look like a CRPG. It is the way the game is evolving itself that threatens to destroy the very creativity that it used to demand of players and DM's alike in the old editions. THAT is the very problem of the lack of 'soul' in the new editions.

Am I the only one who thinks so? Am I missing something here, and do I see things the wrong way?

An 'old-school' DM who still swears by only needing the DMG1, MM1 and PHB1 to have the most fun with (A)DnD[/QUOTE]

 

[Tonguez]

I agree with you in regards to Prestige Classes - they have becoem a crutch with no real flavour beyond the brand new wiz-bang abilities they grant. The original concept was sound the implementation has been flawed

However I love feats (although we see too many combat-bonus or +2 Skill focus feats). Feats allow better customisation in a way that the player controls (and the Dm oversees) Feats can be used to develop a niche, to add extra flavour and to truely make the character a unique individual despite the limitations of a class-based rules system. IMHO publishers should focus more on feats and also incorporate D20 Moderns concept of Talents - a system of Feats and Talents to customise the basic character classes would be truely awesome imho

even Prestige classes should be feat and talent based - eg joining the Order of the Purple Worm gives you access to Feats 'A, B & C' and Talent Trees 'X, Y and Z'...