What are the biggest threats?

[Aust Diamondew]

I think the biggest element added to 3E that was a bad decision was the implementation of Prestige Classes...

Couldn't agree more with that statement, when I first got the 3e DMG they seemed pretty cool, but it was all down hill from there. In my games I disallow most PRCs.

I think 4e should use prestigious talent trees, and there shouldn't be an over proliferation of them (or of ones that are too weak/too strong).

 

[mcrow]

I think the biggest element added to 3E that was a bad decision was the implementation of Prestige Classes.

Virtually all PrCs have either more utility or more power than the same level base class. Because of this, the proliferation of splat books was almost a requirement for the game (i.e. a player does not want to buy a splat book and then be told that he cannot play his favorite PrC out of that book).

The prerequisites for PrCs also added a major element of designing a PC for the future, not for the present.

I like the concept of PrCs, but I think that they should be slightly weaker than base classes and have virtually no special prerequisites. Not significantly weaker, but slightly.

That way, the incentive for taking a PrC is for flavor and roleplaying reasons, not soley for crunch power reasons.

In 3E/3.5, many players will say that they that they want a specific PrC for flavor or roleplaying reasons, but I suspect that it is also for crunch power reasons as well most of the time. Why have a Sorcerer above 10th level if virtually nobody ever takes it?


I hope they fix this for 4E, but I haven't yet seen anything that indicates that they even perceive a problem here.

It sounds like there will be PrCs in 4E, not sure yet how they will be using them .

I think PrCs should be integrated into a class, like a seperate talent tree at higher levels. I would really hate to see PrCs as they are now in 4E.

 

[Korgoth]

Couldn't agree more with that statement, when I first got the 3e DMG they seemed pretty cool, but it was all down hill from there. In my games I disallow most PRCs.

I think 4e should use prestigious talent trees, and there shouldn't be an over proliferation of them (or of ones that are too weak/too strong).

3E reminds me of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" on this point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Paying attention to people who don't really like D&D in the first place.

I could not agree more.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I2. We need a cleaned up DR system.

yeah like DR: 10/+1 or 20/+3 something simple like that.

3. I really like Monte's (Arcana Evolved) system of undead (some at least) being a template instead of a unique monster itself.
.

yup , skeletal.., zombie..., ghoulish..., ghastly... all work pretty darned well.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The designers not having the balls to scrap some of the legacy crap that has been around for far too long.

No kidding. TIme to put the fatbeards to bed. They'll never be happy until its 1st edition anyways.

 

[jasin]

I like the concept of PrCs, but I think that they should be slightly weaker than base classes and have virtually no special prerequisites. Not significantly weaker, but slightly.

That way, the incentive for taking a PrC is for flavor and roleplaying reasons, not soley for crunch power reasons.

So that people are punished (albeit only "slightly") for their roleplaying?

The guy who wants the most powerful option will always take the most powerful option, whether it's the wizard, the sorcerer or the wizard/loremaster. You're not solving the problem of powergaming (assuming it's a problem) by making PrCs unattractive to powergamers. You're just switching their choice to something else.

What you are doing is punishing people who say "I want to play not just a regular wizard, but a member of the Most Learned Order of Imperial Loremasters!", by saying "Sure! Of course, you'll be weaker than Powergamer Pete's simple wizard, but that's just what engaging in the setting gets you around here."

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Paying attention to people who don't really like D&D in the first place.

Do you play 3rd edition?

 

[Cadfan]

I hate PRCs as well, but I think they are a fixable piece of technology. Most of their problems stem from the fact that levels in a PRC don't line up clearly with levels in character classes, creating a power mismatch. This could be fixed. If a PRC with 10 levels can only be entered at level 11 in 3e, there's no more power calibration problem. Everyone knows where it stands.

There are other problems. I think most of them are fixable as well. I wouldn't want this nice piece of technology to be completely abandoned, when it is in fact repairable.

 

[KarinsDad]

So that people are punished (albeit only "slightly") for their roleplaying?

The guy who wants the most powerful option will always take the most powerful option, whether it's the wizard, the sorcerer or the wizard/loremaster. You're not solving the problem of powergaming (assuming it's a problem) by making PrCs unattractive to powergamers. You're just switching their choice to something else.

What you are doing is punishing people who say "I want to play not just a regular wizard, but a member of the Most Learned Order of Imperial Loremasters!", by saying "Sure! Of course, you'll be weaker than Powergamer Pete's simple wizard, but that's just what engaging in the setting gets you around here."

Punishing?

If you view it that way, that's your perogative. I view it as more of a sacrifice to gain exactly what the player wants.

One could say to make them equally as powerful, but that is probably impossible to do in all cases.

I would like them to be equally as powerful, but if given a choice, I prefer players to play the core classes over xyz du jour PrC. The main reason for this is so that we do not have to flip through books at the table in order to find out the details of special ability abc which is not in the core PHB.

But, it's not a matter of punishment. That's your "player entitlement" slant on it. The player is not entitled to play a PrC, he has to earn it. One way is to give up some power or utility.

It's a matter of sacrifice. In order to be the Bizarre Bugbear Hunter Wizard (which also forces the DM to work harder to incorporate this unusual PrC into both the campaign and integrate it with the rest of the PC group), the player and PC have to sacrifice some core abilities to gain the slightly not as potent or useful, but specific to the PrC non-core abilities.

And by slightly, I mean slighty. Even equal would be ok (although hard to accomplish and I would err on the side of slightly). In 3E, PrCs are often a LOT more powerful than core classes. That is one of the problems I think needs addressing.