Thoughts on Prestige Classes and Feats

[BiggusGeekus]

Prestige Classes are a wonderful tool that is -- in my greying haired opinion -- overutiltized. Judging from the covers of some RPG magazines and suppliments, five guys can't get together for a barbeque without forming a society that's the basis for a new PrC. Also, there are a lot of really crummy PrCs out there. If gaining a level in a PrC feels no different than gaining a level in a core class then the PrC isn't designed well.

Feats are a wonderful tool that is underultized. There aren't enough feat "trees" . Feats can be a great thing to track character progress without having to form a seperate PrC for it. Also, feats are great for level 1 characters to highlight their pre-adventuring background (I think every campaign setting should have level 1 only feats.) Feats can also be used as a reward during campaigns. Save the princess from the dragon? The DM should create a very specialized "hero of the realm" feat that the character can purchase if s/he desires.

I remember 1st and 2nd edition all too well. People complain about 3e being more powergamer-ish. The thing about that is that in 3e we can make decisions that were only available for skills in 2e and totally non-existant in 1e. These decisions give the player extra investment in his character as he works for a personal goal that would otherwise have not have ever been addressed.

 

[Vlos]

Whisper,

You sort of answered your own question with the following:

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.

As an experienced DM s/he can make a ruling on the spot to decide if your action is proper or successful.

WoTC has taken the game to those who don't have the experience DMing, thus these people need to know what is proper and/or successful.

So to allow for this they created a system where actions are described with specific points. Abilities are described with Feats/powers.

Think of it as sort of "house rules". You probably DM and have you ever joined another group as a player and in their game/house rules found an interesting ruling for something you have had problems with ruling before? You probably adopted that rule as one of your rules. Now I'm sure the GM did not write down the exact description for you, because again you as a experienced DM could easily interrpret the ruling.

Now for all those new/young DMs they can't. They need/want someone to tell them what is the exact decription of the ruling.

With Feats/Abilities this is just a way to clearly define the rules. Now as in the old days, when you played under a DM that had an outlandish rule you simply ignored it. You can do the same with feats and abilities.

PrC are simply collections of Feats/Abilities in a grouping that makes sense. (usually -some clearly do not)

Do all the Feats and PrC classes detract from role playing? Yes/no. I think its more the system now, becuse back in the old days - I refer to those before skills, if you wanted to try something you simply explained it, the DM would sometimes have you make a roll (unless you described a beautiful action that fit perfect with your character and the situation) and based on that roll (usually against a Prime Stat with situation modifiers) declared success or failure. Now with all the "skills" its easier for a DM to say no you don't have that skill, thus you can't attempt to do it. Or even for a player to say I don't have that skill, thus why should I even try.

With todays system (I feel) with specific rules for almost anything its hard to say, "my monk runs up the wall pushing off the statue slaming his left heal into the back of the guards skull". In the old days it was make a dex roll and a to-hit roll, where as today its what's the movement to the wall, how far up the wall is the statue, do you have the tumble skill? Climb Skill? how many ranks of each, what is the average DC against such a task, are there any attacks of opportunities?

In todays game almost everything CAN be described as a mechanic.

Ok, without going too much longer. I still feel there is room for role playing with todays system and the addition of more feats usually only clarifies specifics or tries to add flavor to those who cannot come up with the flavor, but its also much easier to fall into the mechanics forgetting the role.

My opinions only

 

[Belen]

It's really up to the GM to rule about PrCs. After all, PrCs do not appear in the PHB. The fect that they appear in the DMG means that the GM makes the call on whether they are used.

They can be great tools for individualizing a character, but you should deal with them with caution.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, I don't have gray hair, but my younger brother does and my youngest brother has a receading hair line, so I'm just going to consider myself lucky and post with the rest of the old farts...

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

It's a question of application, I think.

For instance, do I believe 3E is more CRPG-like than RPG-like? Yes, but it's done that way for several reasons.

1. Provide new gamers with clear mechanics.

2. Provide a safety net against power-GMs.

Ideally, experienced gamers and fair GMs can alter the game as they see fit, and with little trouble once they understand the basics of the system.

I don't think Feats and Prestige Classes are really a problem, although they can be if the GM doesn't give the item a good read over and some serious consideration before approving. My own "table rule" is that Feats, Spells, Magic Items, equipment, etc., from any book (and must be OGC, so no WotC splat material) must be reviewed by me first and approved for the campaign, while players are invited to bring these items to me when desired. The only exception are Prestige Classes, which I rarely approve from any source other than myself, and which I introduce in-game as they become relevant rather than having them listed out (i.e., no character-mapping into one).

As for min/max... Well, my group follows a philosophy quite similar to the quote from Psion in my sig, although to date he's probably explained it the best, which is why I quoted him (just this morning, in fact!). But, again, this is a matter of application. For some people, 3E/d20 looses its appeal after it goes "over the top", while for others, going "over the top" is why they play.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's really up to the GM to rule about PrCs. After all, PrCs do not appear in the PHB. The fect that they appear in the DMG means that the GM makes the call on whether they are used.

Heck, the DMG flat out states that this is the case.

 

[Psion]

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?

You may not. But I think that most roleplayers are not master thespians or frustrated authors who come up with sparkling and distinctive personalities. Many players are just looking for some fantasy empowerment, and don't want to see that compromised by someone invading their little niche, and dig having that "special thing" that they can be known for in the party.

 

[jessemock]

For instance, do I believe 3E is more CRPG-like than RPG-like? Yes, but it's done that way for several reasons.

1. Provide new gamers with clear mechanics.

2. Provide a safety net against power-GMs.

The second purpose troubles me (I'm agreeing with you that it is one of the major goals of the new edition): in order to prevent or mitigate the arbitrariness of a GM call in, say, a diplomatic situation--the very height of role-playing--the designers have introduced randomness, a die roll.

Now, to this kind of observation, players will often cry 'stupid': they'll raise the issue of player vs. PC skill--why should a player have to exhibit the charm a high-charisma PC, which the player may not have (really; at all)?

As well ask: why should a player have to know how to use feats to his tactical advantage in combat? Shouldn't the fighter PC know this? Perhaps we should introduce 'battle savvy' as a skill, in order to represent this branch of PC knowledge? A good roll and then suddenly the fighter optimizes his Power Attack?

No; both of these situations are the challenge of role-playing. It's merely that current fashion privileges one form of role-playing over the other. That's why we have a Diplomacy skill, but not a battle savvy one.

The proliferation of feats and prestige classes tends to weaken both approaches, in my opinion. Social roles become Prestige Classes; cool maneuvers become feats. Why can't we just play them out, without resorting to a codification of them? Because no one trusts the GM. Or himself.

 

[Estlor]

What you have to take into consideration is the fundamental theme at the heart of the 3(.5)e system:

"Choices, not restrictions."

3(.5)e is structured to provide players the opportunity to min/max to their heart's content, all without becoming munchkins because (in theory) everything is balanced and the system cannot be broken. Expanding elements of the system (equipment, spells, feats, skills, classes, and races) give the players even more choices and ways to build a unique character every time.

Let's face it, you can say everything can be distinguished by roleplaying alone. But the role of the rules system is to mechanically support your character concept. That's why new feats pop up constantly. They're building flavor into the mechanics of the game, helping to 1) Support character concept and 2) Help build character concept.

Prestige classes were conceived of with a similar idea in mind. Allow the DM to create a handful of prestige classes to represent groups, factions, organizations, or races in a distinct way that adds some flavor and punch to a (N)PC at the expense of early flexibility. However, prestige classes quickly drifted away from that idea. They now represent three entirely different concepts:

1) Elite members of a group or order.
2) Archtypes that can be made with base classes but are given more "zest."
3) Character concepts that the D20 rule mechanic naturally punishes.

That's why you see the Arcane Archer with the Duelist and the Mystic Theurge all in the same book. The Arcane Archer is a campaign specific elven order. The Duelist is a Fighter/Rogue enhancement. The Mystic Theurge counters the mechanical penalties for making a Cleric/Wizard. Even with these different goals, the idea is once again to give characters more choices and options, not restrictions. Flavor is built into the system to support or create character concepts.

Sure, I could be a fighter that uses a rapier exclusively and calls himself a swashbuckler, but in the end, I'm identical to the fighter using a two-handed sword that calls himself a fighter if we're using the same mechanics. However, if I'm a Fighter 7/Duelist 2 with Weapon Finesse and a rapier I'll look and play much different from a Fighter 9 with Power Attack and a greatsword.

 

[Voadam]

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?

The core rules present some archetypes but not the only possible ones. There are good paladins but no evil paladins. Monks are mechanically all the same (less so in 3.5 but still significantly so) and so are generally all paladins. Want to play a fencing master? If you solely rely upon roleplaying then your character will not be as effective at hitting the role. That was the case in past editions when you could play a dextrous fighter who didn't wear heavy armor, but you were essentially handicapping yourself mechanically in doing so. Now with feats, multiclassing, and prestige classes, it is much easier to meet that archetype and remain balanced power wise with other equal level characters. Also your class abilities can reflect your archetype with weapon finesse, quickdraw, improved initiative, etc. And that is just in the core rules. More options just allows you to do so more and in different ways. For instance there is the prestige class in the DMG, a similar one in Librum Equitis, a core class swashbuckler in the Complete Warrior, or the unfettered in Arcana Unearthed. Pretty much all are better at mechanically allowing a balanced swashbuckler than a straight fighter and all will have more of a swashbuckler feel than a fighter in previous editions unless you used outside sources such as the duelist class from dragon magazine.

Before there were alternate classes and homebrewed classes in plenty of games, now with the OGL they are just more prevalent.

But I wouldn't worry about it. Most players don't get more than the PH if that, and many DMs run core rules only games. Also IME many players still mostly use core classes and feats even given vast open sourcebook options.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No; both of these situations are the challenge of role-playing. It's merely that current fashion privileges one form of role-playing over the other. That's why we have a Diplomacy skill, but not a battle savvy one.

Not neccessarily the case, however. For instance, with the Skill, an individual group may do any of the following:

-Declare the attempt and roll (minimum RP)
-Describe the attempt and roll (2nd Person)
-Give a brief approximation of the attempt and roll (abbreviated 1st Person)
-Portray a detailed and intricate discussion and roll (1st Person)

And, in any of these instances, the GM may determine to remove the roll and just have highest modifier succeed. In the later three, it's possible for the GM to have pre-determined responses to specific factors of the PCs attempt (Example NPC Notes: "The Baron does everything possible to disguise the fact that he's being manipulated by the evil priest, but will break down in tears should a PC ask where his daughter is.").

This is why I say that experienced players and GMs can change the way it works easily enough. Or, think of it this way: The rules permit marketing to target the widest possible customer base, while the GM has the responsibility of making the game work for the individual group.

In contrast, Feats often work the opposite way: Most are physical actions or have their effects within another action. Whirlwind attack is attacking everyone adjacent to you; Skill Focus is extra competance regarding actions involving the selected Skill; Enlarge Spell changes the way a spell functions. There isn't really that much to expand on with them, except descriptively, and if there is anything "more" to go with mechanically, then it's usually a Feat Tree or it snaps into another Skill or Feature (like Track to Survival or Divine Feats to Turning).

Also bare in mind that Feats (particularly "Feat Trees" and Feats with high requirements) are scaled in the same way as Skills. That is, while higher Skill Ranks allow more impressive actions based on those skills, Feats climb up in a similar manner. Compare 4 Ranks>7 Ranks>9 Ranks>11 Ranks to Weapon Focus>Weapon Specialization>Greater Weapon Focus>Greater Weapon Specialization.

The proliferation of feats and prestige classes tends to weaken both approaches, in my opinion. Social roles become Prestige Classes; cool maneuvers become feats. Why can't we just play them out, without resorting to a codification of them? Because no one trusts the GM. Or himself.

Again, though, is a matter of application. For instance, the only problem I see with Prestige Classes is that they are used more often by players to pre-map their characters into uber optimization and then, as a result, used by GMs to keep up with the over-the-top PCs. If this isn't what you want, then don't let it happen.

For example, where you describe it as "social roles become Prestige Classes", I see a social role that the character must assume through role-play in order to gain access to the Prestige Class. For instance, to gain the High Lord Mage Prestige Class, you must first gain the "office" of High Lord Mage, or to become the Defender of the Northern Woods, you must actually be in the Northern Woods defending it. Either way, the character must actually be the role in order to obtain the mechanics for it, and that is done in-game.

And again, Prestige Classes fall into the same "ease of use" aspect as skills. That is to say, Prestige Classes do not include "role-playing requirements" because of the wide variation of relevance such requirements may have. There is nothing preventing a GM from adding such requirements. In fact, most of my campaign's Prestige Classes have mechanical requirements that are easy to aquire, but they include RP-based elements that require specific conditions in-game to be met. Make these requirements (both mechanical and RP-based, and even the Prestige Classes themselves) something that is learned of in-game rather than being listed out, and you've completely changed the way Prestige Classes are gained and applied to characters, returning them to the status given to them in the (3.0) DMG (I'd like to assume this didn't change in 3.5, but I've not seen the new DMG yet...).

The game starts with the rules. It ends where ever you take it.