Were PrC's done all wrong?

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

The fact that PrCs provide focus is okay, but as a player, the problem is that they require focus to the exclusion of flavour from level 1.

My method for preventing that is to keep most of the (campaign specific) PClasses unknown, and even those that are known don't publicize their prereqs. As a result, characters don't start "aiming" for a PClass until 5th-6th Level (usually obtaining them around 9th-10th level) or they learn of a PClass that they've naturally gravitated towards without any actual preconception of the PClass.

The only exception thus far is a guild of mages that consider their members to be "apprentices" until about 12th Level, the minimum level that the PClass can be obtained (the PClass is 5 Levels, and I left 3 levels open for the PC to play with for secondary abilities if desired). These apprentices are raised from childhood, so it's the only PClass where direction is given (note, however, the actual prereqs aren't given, just a prefered direction of study and mastery).

The results have been quite flavorful.

I also stay quite clear from published PClasses; Most are just awful, with the best of them simply not being a world-fit.

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: A Note for Celebrim

PrCs are not the trouble, GMs who do not monitor their players nor incorporate PrCs into the game world are the trouble.

Dave

Frankly, I find this disingenuous. If the concept cannot be executed properly by its creators, how can DMs be expected to account for its failings? The rule zero argument works only so long before one gets exasperated at the lack of thought and cohesiveness exhibited in the rulebooks published since the core rulebooks.

 

[Aaron L]

I have no problem with prestige classes at all. People complain about there being to many of them. Well, if you don't look at them, they aren't there for you. Maybe someone else likes one that you don't. Maybe you like one that no one else does. They are there to be used or ignored as you see fit.

 

[TiQuinn]

My gripe is that the PrC's published by Wizards in the classbooks were not playtested. If they were, many probably would have been revised or left out entirely.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My method for preventing that is to keep most of the (campaign specific) PClasses unknown, and even those that are known don't publicize their prereqs. As a result, characters don't start "aiming" for a PClass until 5th-6th Level (usually obtaining them around 9th-10th level) or they learn of a PClass that they've naturally gravitated towards without any actual preconception of the PClass.

I think there is some zen wisdom here.

If have a 9th or 10th level character and you are given the opportunity to move into a PrC that fits your character's goals and abilities, that is probably a pretty cool result. But if your PC's goal is to become a powerful ____Master from level 1, then you have all kinds of incentive to grossly exploit the multiclassing system, and the end result looks pretty cheesy.

A player should spend at least 5 or 6 levels discovering who his PC is. Planning out your career in order to access PrC X at level 7 and PrC Y at level 11 throws the whole multiclass/PrC system into disrepute.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Were PrC's done all wrong?

My gripe is that the PrC's published by Wizards in the classbooks were not playtested. If they were, many probably would have been revised or left out entirely.

Such as? (Besides the Geomancer or Forsaker )

 

[Desdichado]

I honestly don't see what the problem with the amount of prestige classes is, unless it's really just a disguised complaint about the amount of bad prestige classes.

Still, if you don't have a lot of them, DMs have to create them themselves. That's a lot of work, especially for DMs that are (like me) a bit hesitant to go mucking around heavily with the mechanics. I'd rather adopt a published prestige classes, perhaps tweak an ability or two to make it better fit my campaign, rename it, winnow the list down to about a dozen or so that players could potentially use, and maybe another half dozen or so NPC only prestige classes, and I'm off.

But the more options I have, the better I am, certainly. Without those options, I can't possibly do that easily, if at all.

 

[TiQuinn]

kreynolds -

Well, jeez....now that I can't pick the Geomancer....

Mage of the Arcane Order, Hospitaler, Order of the Bow Initiate really stood out as being whacked.

Most of the spellcaster prestige classes from Tome and Blood where they grant a +1 to spellcaster level was simply too powerful given the additional abilities.

Then there are simply some PrC's that are completely dull and uninspired....The Bladesinger and the Virtuoso come to mind. One of the things I didn't understand was if PrC's were not supposed to be geared towards any particular class, why did they get seperated as they did into the classbooks? The worst for this was Song and Silence, IMO. Practically all of the PrC's were geared strictly towards rogues. That's it. Even Bards got the cold shoulder in that book, and it was at least in theory supposed to be geared towards them!

 

[TiQuinn]

I almost forgot....

Master of Chains and the Lasher.

What about these required prestige classes? Their abilities could've been broken down into add'l feats, and would've been far more interesting as characters could've specialized in any number of weapons. The entire concept of the PrC was "I'm really, really, really good with a whip/chain". Lame.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: A Note for Celebrim

The other admitted problem with PrCs are that publishers, including WOTC do not understand them. A PrC should be balanced with the class that it represents. For instance, a fighter PrC should replace the normal feats a fighter earns with special abilities, add more skills points, then less abilities, better saves, then less abilities, lower HD, then more abilities.

I really don't care for this argument at all- PrC's are a tool for the DM, and should not be straightjacketed by some desire for balance.

When I consider the power of a prestige class, two things come immediately to mind:

1) What are the requirements for the PrC?

Are they standard requirements that any member of certain classes are going to take?
Or are they going to require extensive sacrifice to attain?

If the former, then balance might be more of an issue.
If the latter, then I want to see some boost in power.

2) What is its role in the world?

Eventually, I am going to start up a 2nd edition tradition in 3rd- a small campeign based off of the Visionaries cartoon.

The Visionaries are clearly more powerful then their "normal" contemporaries in the world- and the PrC for them should be as well.

Will all the players take the PrC? I hope so, but if they don't then that is there choice.

Any power difference found when comparing a base class to a PrC is never a consideration. Why should it be?

In the end, "balance" is an illusion. There are too many options in d20 to worry about trying to balance everything. It is up to the DM to decide what is appropriate for their campeign.. in which I would agree with what you later said on that issue.

Outside of my gaming table, I would prefer designers just do what they want- I would rather have the option to implement powerful PrC's imc then not have the option at all.

Along those lines...

Frankly, I find this disingenuous. If the concept cannot be executed properly by its creators, how can DMs be expected to account for its failings? The rule zero argument works only so long before one gets exasperated at the lack of thought and cohesiveness exhibited in the rulebooks published since the core rulebooks.

I find many PrC's designed well enough.

Since I have to ok anything from any sourcebook to be allowed imc, then ok'ng a prestige class is not too much to ask.

Considering some of your other opinions on printed PrC's, I am glad they are not being printed to meet your standards.

FD