Thoughts on Prestige Classes and Feats

[jessemock]

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

I've always considered this notion pure nonsense: the game is the rules, and it isn't anything else.

The line that D&D offers us something marvelous by making explicit the tacit fact that we can play it however we like in the privacy of our own homes strikes me as rather a specious recommendation.

Yes; I can use the D&D3.5 rules to roleplay social situations; I can also use a screwdriver to hammer a nail.

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.

No; they don't. The marketing of D&D tells us, via various ways of expressing 'Rule 0' that the screwdriver they've sold us may serve perfectly well as a hammer. It's not true.

The only balance issue is balance in combat. The purpose of the social skills is to resolve the role-playing of social situations in as near a method to that used in combat as possible, i.e. in a way that is as free as possible of the DM's judgement.

Maneuver-type feats are the same: they are designed to codify a tactic, in order to prevent a DM from making any decisions about them. Sometimes this is reasonable, other times not.

Yes; feats and prestige classes offer a valid means of establishing a way of expressing a character concept, but, just as well, they often diminish the role-playing options available to a player--which is also what they are meant to do. They serve as a brief, game-mechanical exposition of an idea that could have been role-played; they replace that role-playing precisely because D&D doesn't emphasise the importance of it. D&D recognises almost nothing that doesn't make an appearance in the kind of role-playing that it favours, which is combat.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[Planesdragon]

Feats are a wonderful tool that is underultized.

A big part of that is that feats are so limited. A 20th level character without any bonus feats only has six feats (and the most feat-heavy character, a human fighter, tops out at 18.)

IMC, I allow characters to buy feats as "quarter levels." This lets them get powers that they want, without greatly upseting the balance of the game. So far, it's a nice fix that makes feats a lot more like what they're supposed to be, and less a simple jumping through hoops to fulfill a PrC's requirement.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I've always considered this notion pure nonsense: the game is the rules, and it isn't anything else.

Actually, I find that it's the opposite: You determine the parameters of the game and then modify the rules to fit it. D&D is only one way of applying the d20 rules to a Fantasy RPG. Slain is another. Conan is another. Arcana Unearthed is another. Traveler is d20 gone Sci-Fi, as is Star Wars. Cthulu is d20 gone horror. Spycraft is d20 shaken, not stirred.

The game is whatever you make it; The rules are there to support it.

The line that D&D offers us something marvelous by making explicit the tacit fact that we can play it however we like in the privacy of our own homes strikes me as rather a specious recommendation.

It's not a recommendation that GMs can change the rules; It's acknowledgement than many of us will.

Yes; I can use the D&D3.5 rules to roleplay social situations; I can also use a screwdriver to hammer a nail.

Ever try to jump-start a car with two crowbars? It ain't easy, and someone's going to get a shock out of it, but it works.

As for using a screwdriver in the place of a hammer, I definately recommend going with Craftsman Tools.

No; they don't. The marketing of D&D tells us, via various ways of expressing 'Rule 0' that the screwdriver they've sold us may serve perfectly well as a hammer. It's not true.

I think the problem is that you are comparing screwdrivers to hammers... Try comparing it instead to a socket wrench, where you can change the sockets. Or a Master Allen Set, where you flip out the specific Allen Wrench for the job required.

The only balance issue is balance in combat. The purpose of the social skills is to resolve the role-playing of social situations in as near a method to that used in combat as possible, i.e. in a way that is as free as possible of the DM's judgement.

Which raises the question: What's the purpose of the GM if his judgement is irrelevent?

Maneuver-type feats are the same: they are designed to codify a tactic, in order to prevent a DM from making any decisions about them. Sometimes this is reasonable, other times not.

Alright... Are you complaining that the Core Rules reduce the role of the GM..? Cause that's how this is reading to me.

Yes; feats and prestige classes offer a valid means of establishing a way of expressing a character concept, but, just as well, they often diminish the role-playing options available to a player--which is also what they are meant to do. They serve as a brief, game-mechanical exposition of an idea that could have been role-played; they replace that role-playing precisely because D&D doesn't emphasise the importance of it. D&D recognises almost nothing that doesn't make an appearance in the kind of role-playing that it favours, which is combat.

Which is exactly why I assert that these factors need to be put in by the GM...

Question: Have you seen Monte Cook's Prestige Class Design Seminar on his web site? During the second part, he's discussing Prestige Class Requirements. This following excerpt comes from that section, reviewing a Prestige Class made by one of his board's regulars and submitted for the workshop.

Requirements:
Craft (Weaponsmithing) - 6 ranks
Feats - Weapon Focus*, Alertness, Quick Draw
BAB - +5
Special - Must have used a single martial or exotic melee masterwork weapon (or a mace, spear or morning star) consistently and primarily** during the last three levels leading up to taking this prestige class.

(There are other requirements, but I didn't include them here because they are flavor related. They make the class interesting, and I highly recommend including things like that, but they have no place in a discussion of balance.)

I've always felt that this is important excerpt because here's the author of the DMG describing exactly what I'm talking about: group-specific elements that are suitable on the campaign level but are irrelevant to published material. The reason why it's irrelevant is, as the excerpt says, it's not related to balance. While suitable at the table of the person that wrote the Prestige Class, the condition it requires may not be relevant at Monte's table, my table, your table, or anyone else's table. As such, as a released generic product, such things have no place in the material.

Granted, I wish the DMG discussed this topic just a little more, in order to give it more "credibility", so to speak. But anyone saying that this isn't part of the game's nature isn't as knowledgable as they claim, and anyone wanting to do such things but feel held back by the rules and its balance should consider themselves to have the green light and go for it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Why am I having flashbacks of Jerry Sienfeld and George saying this..?

 

[nameless]

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).

I have to be honest and say that, when I'm a player, this frustrates me to no end. Every character concept could be mapped onto a PrC at some level between 6 and 10, if you (the DM) are willing to create a PrC with that focus, assuming one isn't already printed. In that circumstance, to give one character a PrC and deny another one reeks of favoritism if the choice isn't in the hands of the players. Everybody wants to reflect their character concept as closely with the rules as possible, and PrCs have risen to the fore as the best way to do that.

There is also the issue of entry requirements. If you enforce any kind of entry requirement on a PrC when the players can't know about it in advance, that is purely a punishment.

It's fine to say that a PrC is too powerful, or too weak, or the wrong flavor, or to tweak it to fit your campaign, since many of them won't fit perfectly. You're the DM and that's your call, after all. But saying that "prestige classes must be given out by the DM and not earned by the PCs" crosses the line of IC and OOC knowledge, in my opinion. The characters don't know that they are changing classes or learning new feats; they just know what they can and can't do. The players are allowed to pick from all of the base classes and any feat in the book, and that is invisible to the characters IC. Exempting prestige classes from the character design process definitely screws with players having control of their characters on a fundamental level.

 

[der_kluge]

I think there are a lot of great prestige classes and feats out there to allow people to do things that they can't do with just a game ruling. Dragon Disciple really comes to mind. As a player, I could really use that to codify a character's draconic origins and get a real game-based effect from it.

That said, I think there are *far* too many prestige classes and feats out there, and a lot of them aren't really necessary, and most will never get used. I also believe that the game is perfectly fine utilizing just the core books, but I like having other options available to me. And my group really enjoys using all the various prestige class options.

 

[Numion]

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.

In Soviet Russia, the game runs you

An enjoyable game can be had with just the three core rulebooks, with no PrCs. We did that.

An enjoyable game can be had when all of our d20 material is used. We did that.

In both cases players min-maxed, because we like that. In both cases players roleplayed, because we like that too. Time to put an end to this BS that powergaming or minmaxing necessarily creates PCs with no personality. You don't have to sacrifice character power for character concept, unless your concept is some kind of cripple.

The options PrCs and feats present don't force you to do anything. If you find that hard, try this: think up a character concept. Then minmax that concept. Then you'll have a powerful character with the right concept.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I have to be honest and say that, when I'm a player, this frustrates me to no end.

Funny... My players have no problem with it.

Just out of curiosity, being that it frustates you "when [you're] a player", how do you feel when you're a GM?

Every character concept could be mapped onto a PrC at some level between 6 and 10, if you (the DM) are willing to create a PrC with that focus, assuming one isn't already printed.

Actually, there are a few PrC in the DMG that require more than 10 levels (Archmage, Hierophant), but that's irrelevant, I guess.

In that circumstance, to give one character a PrC and deny another one reeks of favoritism if the choice isn't in the hands of the players.

Did something in my post imply that this is what is occuring? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't write anything that resembles this in the slightest.

Wait, let me check...

Scroll... Scroll... Scroll... Read read read...

Nope, nothing about this at all. Care to explain why this meaningless accusation came flying out of left field?

Everybody wants to reflect their character concept as closely with the rules as possible, and PrCs have risen to the fore as the best way to do that.

That or they've been abused by players to serve that purpose. The stated purpose of Prestige Classes isn't to fill out character concepts, but to fill out campaign concepts. That you and others have loosened this standard is irrelevant. Indeed, Prestige Classes are an optional rule, and may be applied in the following ways:

1. Not at all.
2. NPCs only.
3. NPCs and PCs under special conditions.
4. NPCs and PCs freely.

What you're saying is that you prefer Option 4 and view any other option as screwing the players, and, well, that's a personal issue you'll have to deal with on your own.

There is also the issue of entry requirements. If you enforce any kind of entry requirement on a PrC when the players can't know about it in advance, that is purely a punishment.

Not in the slightest. Unless, of course, you have some presumed notion that a PC requires all 10 Levels in a Prestige Class (or 5 or 3, whatever...) by 20th Level. However, there is nothing in the rules anywhere to even imply that this is true, so if you view it as punishment, well, that's just a personal issue you'll have to deal with on your own.

It's fine to say that a PrC is too powerful, or too weak, or the wrong flavor, or to tweak it to fit your campaign, since many of them won't fit perfectly. You're the DM and that's your call, after all.

Glad to see we agree on something.

But saying that "prestige classes must be given out by the DM and not earned by the PCs" crosses the line of IC and OOC knowledge, in my opinion. The characters don't know that they are changing classes or learning new feats; they just know what they can and can't do.

Yet you've no problem of crossing that same line to ensure that your PC does so in the most efficient, expediant manner?

Interesting.

The players are allowed to pick from all of the base classes and any feat in the book, and that is invisible to the characters IC.

No, it's not when you think about it... For instance, a PC may not know Dodge is a Feat or that Power Attack is a Feat, but the PC does know that he is learning how to dodge or learning how to strike harder. He might not know that Fighter is a Class or that Wizard is a class, but the PC does know if he's learning how to fight better or learning about magic.

In short, the "it's invisible to the PCs" has got to be the lamest excuses for using OOC knowledge I've ever read. Unfortunately, I read it a lot.

Exempting prestige classes from the character design process definitely screws with players having control of their characters on a fundamental level.

No, it doesn't. In game, the PCs may choose to pursue a multitude of routes. Perhaps, in play, a PC meets an NPC that is a member of the Knights of Silver Hill. That PC may choose to pursue membership. But the question is: Are the Knights of Silver Hill members of a Prestige Class? Maybe they are Fighters that have nothing more than the standard Mounted Combat options provided in the Core Rules and a fancy keep where they park their horses. Perhaps they simply have a Feat or two that no other group or organization has ever mastered.

What I present is a gaming environment in which the role of the Knights of Silver Hill is what the PC decides to pursue. By this pursuit, if he's worthy (i.e., has the "basics" that they would desire, his alignment, attitude and reputation are ideal, etc.), then members of the organization will mentor him (in game) towards qualifying for membership. Upon gaining membership, the "secrets" of the Knights of Silver Hill (if there even are any such secrets) become known. If there is a group of Feats and the PC doesn't like them, he's free not to take them. If it's a Prestige Class, same deal. PC is still a member of the Knights of Silver Hill, which is the IC goal.

The bottom line is that if the player isn't interested in the role, than it doesn't matter what the mechanics are because the PC isn't going to gain the benefits without the role attached to them.

 

[nameless]

Funny... My players have no problem with it.

Just out of curiosity, being that it frustates you "when [you're] a player", how do you feel when you're a GM?

As GM, I let my players take any PrC they qualify for, presuming I don't veto or alter it on game balance (which I have only done with 3.0 material, especially when porting it to 3.5). I have to run the risk of them making characters that are inappropriate to the game, but the PrC doesn't make that character inappropriate, the concept does.

Actually, there are a few PrC in the DMG that require more than 10 levels (Archmage, Hierophant), but that's irrelevant, I guess.

It's a good point, what I meant was that it's conceivable to design a class that represents the same thing an Archmage or Heirophant does, as something that could be taken at level 9 or 10. It would be less powerful at the beginning, but conceptually fits the same niche.

Did something in my post imply that this is what is occuring? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't write anything that resembles this in the slightest.

Wait, let me check...

Scroll... Scroll... Scroll... Read read read...

Nope, nothing about this at all. Care to explain why this meaningless accusation came flying out of left field?

I apologize, I wasn't trying to be belligerent or twist your words... I made an assumption. It would make sense to me (and in the games I've played where DMs control PrCs tightly, it has been the case) that not every character gets a PrC as soon as he could qualify for it, and some don't get them at all, or get one that they wouldn't necessarily find the best fit. If the PCs get every prestige class as soon as they want it, then we have no argument - the DM wouldn't be restricting anything at all.

That or they've been abused by players to serve that purpose. The stated purpose of Prestige Classes isn't to fill out character concepts, but to fill out campaign concepts. That you and others have loosened this standard is irrelevant. Indeed, Prestige Classes are an optional rule, and may be applied in the following ways:

1. Not at all.
2. NPCs only.
3. NPCs and PCs under special conditions.
4. NPCs and PCs freely.

What you're saying is that you prefer Option 4 and view any other option as screwing the players, and, well, that's a personal issue you'll have to deal with on your own.

Fair enough. In my opinion as a DM, 1 and 2 are the same, since what happens behind the screen doesn't necessarily need structure the same way things in front of it do. I'm not gonna try to tell you that you should allow anyone to take any prestige class if that's not how your game runs. But I completely fail to see how players can "abuse" prestige classes for the purpose of creating the character they want. The only abuse that can exist in this type of game is one in which a character can gain power disproportionate to his level - if the class is abusive, it is always abusive and should be modified or disallowed completely.

Not in the slightest. Unless, of course, you have some presumed notion that a PC requires all 10 Levels in a Prestige Class (or 5 or 3, whatever...) by 20th Level. However, there is nothing in the rules anywhere to even imply that this is true, so if you view it as punishment, well, that's just a personal issue you'll have to deal with on your own.

That's not necessary either. But I'll use an example of a character I just made. A bounty hunter who will become a Justicar from Complete Warrior. I would have taken all the skills required, I'd naturally gain the necessary BAB, and Track just makes sense for the character. But I might never take Skill Focus - Gather Information despite the fact that I am serious about Gather Information as a skill. If I wasn't told that I needed to take that feat, I'd almost certainly take a more useful feat than Skill Focus, possibly the Investigator feat if I wanted to be better at Gather Info than my skill ranks allowed. Unless I was trying to complete the requirements for a PrC, I'd probably never take that skill focus because I don't have a lot of feats to spend on raising my skill level, considering that I am a fighter-type who doesn't have great skills in the first place. So enforcing the requirement of Skill Focus feat for that prestige class (were you to allow it) is definitely a punishment. The character might see other Justicars and wish to become one, but wouldn't be able to figure out that a Skill Focus feat is holding him back. If you as a DM said "sure, Investigator works, congratulations," then you are being reasonable, but not enforcing the requirements. That is what I meant by unfair. Requiring an out of character mechanic to be learned about in character.

Glad to see we agree on something.

=D

Yet you've no problem of crossing that same line to ensure that your PC does so in the most efficient, expediant manner?

Interesting.

OOC, I know a lot of things about my character and the world that no character will know. In character, there is no way to tell if I have 3 more hit points because I rolled well or because I took toughness.

No, it's not when you think about it... For instance, a PC may not know Dodge is a Feat or that Power Attack is a Feat, but the PC does know that he is learning how to dodge or learning how to strike harder. He might not know that Fighter is a Class or that Wizard is a class, but the PC does know if he's learning how to fight better or learning about magic.

In short, the "it's invisible to the PCs" has got to be the lamest excuses for using OOC knowledge I've ever read. Unfortunately, I read it a lot.

I don't see it as lame. The character doesn't know if he gains any ability from a feat, from a skill, or from a class. But either way, I am allowed to pick from any class, feat, or skill available to him. My level 18 wizard could take improved critical - greatclub if I really wanted to with no previous explanation. I simply don't see prestige classes as being so special that their OOC properties are unknown to players, especially when they get written on the players sheets.

No, it doesn't. In game, the PCs may choose to pursue a multitude of routes. Perhaps, in play, a PC meets an NPC that is a member of the Knights of Silver Hill. That PC may choose to pursue membership. But the question is: Are the Knights of Silver Hill members of a Prestige Class? Maybe they are Fighters that have nothing more than the standard Mounted Combat options provided in the Core Rules and a fancy keep where they park their horses. Perhaps they simply have a Feat or two that no other group or organization has ever mastered.

What I present is a gaming environment in which the role of the Knights of Silver Hill is what the PC decides to pursue. By this pursuit, if he's worthy (i.e., has the "basics" that they would desire, his alignment, attitude and reputation are ideal, etc.), then members of the organization will mentor him (in game) towards qualifying for membership. Upon gaining membership, the "secrets" of the Knights of Silver Hill (if there even are any such secrets) become known. If there is a group of Feats and the PC doesn't like them, he's free not to take them. If it's a Prestige Class, same deal. PC is still a member of the Knights of Silver Hill, which is the IC goal.

The bottom line is that if the player isn't interested in the role, than it doesn't matter what the mechanics are because the PC isn't going to gain the benefits without the role attached to them.

That works for tropes where prestige classes or feats represent an organization, but not when such things happen on their own. Many times the player wants to determine his role on his own, not to do whatever is presented to him. He might like the Knights of Silver Hill, but really dream of taming a pegasus and riding that instead. OOC he wants to take some PrC of that nature, but there's no guarantee that you as DM will give him that chance. Ideally you will, but as long as there is a good faith effort to work together, I don't see why it would be an issue to let the player have all the options on the table instead of 90% in front of him and the 10% behind your screen.

 

[ph0rk]

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.

If that is what you desire, you shouldn't use classes at all.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

As GM, I let my players take any PrC they qualify for, presuming I don't veto or alter it on game balance (which I have only done with 3.0 material, especially when porting it to 3.5). I have to run the risk of them making characters that are inappropriate to the game, but the PrC doesn't make that character inappropriate, the concept does.

Ah, but concept is everything... After all, without concept, all that's left is numbers.

It's a good point, what I meant was that it's conceivable to design a class that represents the same thing an Archmage or Heirophant does, as something that could be taken at level 9 or 10. It would be less powerful at the beginning, but conceptually fits the same niche.

That's true, but is it always the viable choice?

And as my Knights of Silver Hill example showed, not everything has a Prestige Class.

It would make sense to me (and in the games I've played where DMs control PrCs tightly, it has been the case) that not every character gets a PrC as soon as he could qualify for it, and some don't get them at all, or get one that they wouldn't necessarily find the best fit. If the PCs get every prestige class as soon as they want it, then we have no argument - the DM wouldn't be restricting anything at all.

I would posit that this is more telling about player expectations than the GM's control over Prestige Classes. For instance, you indicate that if the GM is "restricting" an unfortunate situation can imerge (your word is "argument", but I'll assume that was meant as descriptive). However, reading over the explaination of Prestige Classes in the DMG, one could surmise that the GM that freely allows Prestige Classes is, in fact, being incredibly generous. That generosity has now become an expectation. And that expectation leads to the disgruntlement you describe above when a not-so-generous GM is at the helm.

Is that a fair expectation to put on the second GM?

Fair enough. In my opinion as a DM, 1 and 2 are the same, since what happens behind the screen doesn't necessarily need structure the same way things in front of it do.

Well, I wouldn't say they're identicle, since Option 2 permits a DM to freely advertise the presence of Prestige Classes without allowing them while Option 1 indicates that there are no Prestige Classes at all. Option 2 also means that the players can expect something other than Core Classes in leveled opponents and NPCs.

I'm not gonna try to tell you that you should allow anyone to take any prestige class if that's not how your game runs. But I completely fail to see how players can "abuse" prestige classes for the purpose of creating the character they want. The only abuse that can exist in this type of game is one in which a character can gain power disproportionate to his level - if the class is abusive, it is always abusive and should be modified or disallowed completely.

When the generosity of one GM becomes expected of another GM, then it's being abused.

That's not necessary either. But I'll use an example of a character I just made. A bounty hunter who will become a Justicar from Complete Warrior. I would have taken all the skills required, I'd naturally gain the necessary BAB, and Track just makes sense for the character. But I might never take Skill Focus - Gather Information despite the fact that I am serious about Gather Information as a skill. If I wasn't told that I needed to take that feat, I'd almost certainly take a more useful feat than Skill Focus, possibly the Investigator feat if I wanted to be better at Gather Info than my skill ranks allowed. Unless I was trying to complete the requirements for a PrC, I'd probably never take that skill focus because I don't have a lot of feats to spend on raising my skill level, considering that I am a fighter-type who doesn't have great skills in the first place. So enforcing the requirement of Skill Focus feat for that prestige class (were you to allow it) is definitely a punishment. The character might see other Justicars and wish to become one, but wouldn't be able to figure out that a Skill Focus feat is holding him back. If you as a DM said "sure, Investigator works, congratulations," then you are being reasonable, but not enforcing the requirements. That is what I meant by unfair. Requiring an out of character mechanic to be learned about in character.

This, again, is pointing towards the idea of being "brought in" by an NPC. Whether its an aged Duelist sharing the secrets of his rare (unique, perhaps?) fighting style or a band of Knights instructing a young hero, this avenues are made available for the NPCs to relay information to the PC. When the PC levels up, he's informed what aspects of this mentorship would be influencing his gains (i.e., which Skills and Feats are recommended, but not forced, by their mentorship, with knowledge that these recommendations point the PC towards admission into the group or graduation by a single instructor).

Sure, not everything can be relayed adequately in-game, but we try to go in that direction with as much as we can.

OOC, I know a lot of things about my character and the world that no character will know. In character, there is no way to tell if I have 3 more hit points because I rolled well or because I took toughness.

Technically true. But let's read on...

I don't see it as lame. The character doesn't know if he gains any ability from a feat, from a skill, or from a class. But either way, I am allowed to pick from any class, feat, or skill available to him. My level 18 wizard could take improved critical - greatclub if I really wanted to with no previous explanation. I simply don't see prestige classes as being so special that their OOC properties are unknown to players, especially when they get written on the players sheets.

But here's the issue: If IC and OOC is as seperate as you indicate, then what we end up with is a whole lot of characters that just happen to gain certain abilities that just happen to evolve into other abilities. The in-game consequence is that these characters are just sprouting out powers and abilities without any rhyme or reason, which is the problem we have with this line of thinking: Rather than being a part of game play, they just spontaneously manifest. And, oddly enough, do so in a most efficient manner.

That works for tropes where prestige classes or feats represent an organization, but not when such things happen on their own. Many times the player wants to determine his role on his own, not to do whatever is presented to him.

Yet isn't that what he's doing if he pre-determines what Prestige Classes he's going to take?

The only way I can think of for the player to determine his "own role" by way of Prestige Class is for him to create his own Prestige Class that does exactly what he wants it to do (or, alternately, his own Base Class).

He might like the Knights of Silver Hill, but really dream of taming a pegasus and riding that instead. OOC he wants to take some PrC of that nature, but there's no guarantee that you as DM will give him that chance.

Ah, now see, Classes and Prestige Classes do not just "appear" for no reason. They are a collection of Skills and abilities that have become grouped together to represent an archtype. Base Classes are for archtypes that are so common that young characters can fit them. Prestige Classes are archtypes that are grown into. Having a Prestige Class present for Pegasus riders would require that people riding Pegasi are (or atleast were) common enough to form an archtype.

Ideally you will, but as long as there is a good faith effort to work together, I don't see why it would be an issue to let the player have all the options on the table instead of 90% in front of him and the 10% behind your screen.

And here's the other half of the issue: Even if I laid out every Prestige Class I've designed for my players to pick and choose from, I'm not expanding their options, but limiting them. Why, you ask? Why, because the world is an ever growing, ever expanding place, becoming more detailed every time I open Word. By saying "here are all of the Prestige Classes", the players are now making choices based on what is present now. However, one player may pick something as being the closest fit to his character, only to find 6 months later that I designed something similar but more in-line with his wants. Now, he's been following this map to PrC1, but now really wants PrC2 instead. Unfortunately, he wasn't picking the right prerequisites.

Will this not have the same effect as not having known about the Prestige Classes in the first place?

I am, believe it or not, very giving with Prestige Classes. However, my philosophy of applying them to PCs is based on player decisions. Essentially, what the group understands is that they can take a concept as far as the rules allow, as presented. Once that's done, if the concept can be taken further, and if this new direction can be justified as an archtype within the setting, then I will present the opportunity for them to do so.

Which, of course, is why I'm less concerned about mechanical prereqs and more focused on in-game justification.