Thoughts on Prestige Classes and Feats

[Saeviomagy]

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?

The fighter has to know where and when to use his feats. He then rolls to see if he achieves his goal (usually hitting the enemy).

The social character has to know where and when to use intimidate/diplomacy/bluff/sense motive etc. He then rolls to see if he achieves his goal (usually persuading the enemy).

Either scenario can have flair and flavour added by players to taste.

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.

No, it's because they're a totally different kettle of fish. You have a 'battle savvy' skill - it's called your BAB.

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.

For the most part, a PrC introduces something that is simply not covered under the standard rules. Furthermore, it introduces something that the average character would most likely not be able to do.

Treat classes (prestige or not) as what they are: mechanics. Roleplay your heart out. Buy ranks in social skills and a decent charisma score.

Or bugger off back to 2nd ed, when the rules were flexible, because noone could work out what they actually said, and the only people with a high charisma score were paladins, druids and bards, and that's just because the rules said they had to, not because it ever had an effect on gameplay.

 

[hong]

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.

Shush, you. You're going to make some heads explodiate at this rate.

 

[Joe123]

Posted By Bendris Noulg:

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.

You are saying that laying out every prestige class you've designed for players at the beginning, is limiting, because the players are unaware of future prestige classes you might introduce later. However, the system you use in replacement of this is equally (just as) limiting. Here is that system:

, 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.

[I assume to take up and become that prestige class].

Thus, you attach conditions to the potential for players to undertake any prestige class. That may be a great way to handle prestige classes, but it is limiting for the players.

 

[Barak]

Bah. There's nothing wrong with "planning" for a PrC, and it sure doesn't stop people from role-playing. The Dwarven Defender PrC constituted a big part of my character's background (in a game that started at 1st level). In fact, it was the main reason my character went "adventuring" instead of staing in the delve and remaining a blacksmith (he still considers himself one, even though he's 6th level now). The notion that all PrCs need to be some sort of huge secret hoarded by the DM as closely as a dragon hoards every copper piece in order for the players to roleplay properly boggles the mind.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Posted By Bendris Noulg:


You are saying that laying out every prestige class you've designed for players at the beginning, is limiting, because the players are unaware of future prestige classes you might introduce later. However, the system you use in replacement of this is equally (just as) limiting. Here is that system:

[I assume to take up and become that prestige class].

Thus, you attach conditions to the potential for players to undertake any prestige class. That may be a great way to handle prestige classes, but it is limiting for the players.

You have a very "glass half-empty" way of looking at things. It's not "conditions" so much as it is incentive to interact with the world and actually find out what's in the world to be taken.

And besides, if the concept can't be taken further (i.e., Feats and/or multiclassing already covers it), why introduce a Prestige Class for it at all?

Honestly, the only complaint I've read here (about my application of Prestige Classes) is that this method doesn't really permit Prestige Classes to be used as a min/maxing tool. And, well, all I really have to say in that regard is "so what"? I mean, does the way I do it at all effect your ability to min/max in your games?

I mean, here I thought I was putting forth a way of applying Prestige Classes (and Feats) to avoid the issues that Whisper72 was concerned about regarding them. All the rest of you have done is reinforce his negative perception of them.

Nice, folks... Very nice. [Insert Rolling-Eyes Here]

 

[jessemock]

The fighter has to know where and when to use his feats. He then rolls to see if he achieves his goal (usually hitting the enemy).

The social character has to know where and when to use intimidate/diplomacy/bluff/sense motive etc. He then rolls to see if he achieves his goal (usually persuading the enemy).

Completely untrue in both cases. You're mistaking character for player here.

The player has to know when and where to use feats. The player does not have to know anything about when and where to use diplomacy.

No, it's because they're a totally different kettle of fish. You have a 'battle savvy' skill - it's called your BAB.

Untrue. A player is expected to know how to fight well. A player is not expected to know how to negotiate well. BAB has nothing to do with this. Again, you're confusing player and character.

For the most part, a PrC introduces something that is simply not covered under the standard rules. Furthermore, it introduces something that the average character would most likely not be able to do.

So?

Treat classes (prestige or not) as what they are: mechanics. Roleplay your heart out. Buy ranks in social skills and a decent charisma score.

Argh. You're kind of missing the point that the rules are designed to be dismissive of social interaction. Buying ranks in social skills is precisely a way of avoiding this sort of role-playing.

Or bugger off back to 2nd ed,

I'll pass on the buggery, thanks.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The player has to know when and where to use feats. The player does not have to know anything about when and where to use diplomacy.

If the character talks to the wrong guy, he'll get no information. If they're diplomatic, but ask the wrong questions, they'll get no information.

I've watched this sort of thing happen, when the DM is genuinely interested in an interactive game, and not simply a "OK, that 30 on the diplomacy check gets the guy to tell you X, Y and Z. Who do you talk to next?", it's entirely possible for the clueless diplomat to wander around doing absolutely nothing, because he talks to the wrong people about the wrong topics.

Similarly, I've seen games where the DM has chosen not to use a battlemap, and therefore most tactical decisions are taken out of the hands of the players - their feats and class abilities dictate how the combat goes. All they really have to do is pick a target and a weapon to hit them with. And even that much choice makes a serious difference to the outcome of a combat.

Untrue. A player is expected to know how to fight well. A player is not expected to know how to negotiate well. BAB has nothing to do with this. Again, you're confusing player and character.

The player is expected to know which of bluff/diplomacy/intimidate to use, and which people he needs to talk to, and what topics he needs to talk about. A 'helpful' NPC doesn't know what the PC needs to know. And if the PC doesn't know either, then no meaningful exchange of information takes place.

So?

So without some codification, the GM is going to make up rules on the fly, write them down in a big codex and remember which ones apply when. Or not - he'll most likely make up a rule for one time, forget it, and make up a different one the next time.

If you codify your against-the-rules maneuvers, and make it the player's job to keep track of them, it makes the GM and player's positions much easier.

Argh. You're kind of missing the point that the rules are designed to be dismissive of social interaction. Buying ranks in social skills is precisely a way of avoiding this sort of role-playing.

Says whom? You?
The bluff rules require the player to choose what his lie is. The opposed roll is then governed by the situation that the NPC is in - whether he is inclined to believe the bluff, or find it risky, or whatever.

The player STILL needs to pick the lie that he's putting forth, and he STILL needs to think about whether it's believable or risky to the NPC.

The diplomacy rules allow you to change the 'reaction' of an NPC. They don't get you any information whatsoever.

The sense motive rules just tell you that something's not quite right about this guy. They don't tell you the exact lie that he told.

Gather information gets you rumours, maps, items and the like. It doesn't simply reveal major plot points, unless those major plot points are in the form of rumours. Take a look at the Dungeon adventure path for how rumours go - make a roll, get some random rumours.

Not one of these is a "make a roll, find out all you need to know/persuade someone to hand you their priceless artwork/know exactly what someone is thinking".

Roleplay is still necessary. Player's thinking is still necessary.

What isn't necessary is knowing the exact right words to say in a situation, and (for the DM) knowing exactly how the NPC will react to them. That's all.

Beyond that, if you enjoy roleplay, you'll do it regardless of the rules. Roleplay doesn't need rules support, and complaining that the rules don't support it is like saying "if I jump off a cliff, the air doesn't hold me up - that's not fair!". Note that I'm not saying that roleplaying is like jumping off a cliff in any other way - just that you don't expect the air to hold you up in the same way that you shouldn't expect the rules to do the work for you.

I'll pass on the buggery, thanks.

Good for you. Glad to see you're going to stick with the system that works.