What Bugs Me About Prestige Classes

[Rawhide]

I like the idea of classes you have to qualify for, with bonuses and abilities that stack (though WFRP did the idea first). However, I think the d20 version wasn't properly implemented until d20 Modern. The breakdown of baisc class (simple core concept), advanced class (specialized concept, available at 2nd or 3rd level) and prestige class (rare specific concept tied to an organization or power, not available until 6th at the earliest) works much better than the D&D version. Especially since d20 modern Advanced classes are all built on much the same platform (bonus feats at certain levels, special abilities at others).

Given the bard/ranger/paladin prestige clases available in UA, it's easy enough to set up a campaign to do this, but I bet we'll see WotC go that route as well for 4e D&D. d20 Modern is obviously a testbed for d20 ideas (look how many canges between 3.0 and d20 Modern were incorporated into 3.5), and the basic/advanced/prestige class breakdown has been used well there.

 

[MerricB]

The Radiant Servant of Pelor makes the cleric better at the unfun part of being a cleric (healing) at the cost of being worse at the fun part of being a cleric (melee combat - through a lower Hit Die, and a slightly reduced BAB). Turn Undead is fairly irrelevant.

Cheers!

 

[Felon]

I like the idea of classes you have to qualify for, with bonuses and abilities that stack (though WFRP did the idea first).

Nope, D&D had it first with 1e bard.

Cthulhudrew, I agree with you completely. Mechanically, many PrC's are just a hodgepodge of standard abilities, and that's just uninspired.

While I do think any given PrC should provide some unique trademark ability, I think there should also some common mechanics used for thematically-similar types of PrC's. For instance, the dervish, the thief-acrobat, and the duelist are all supposed to be lightly-armored and good at avoiding blows, so there should be a standard way of providing them defensive bonuses. The dervish gives a flat AC bonus, but the thief-acrobat only receives some measly conditional bonus while fighting defensively, while the duelist gives a huge bonus to AC while fighting defensively, but only at very late stage in its advancement.

On another note, I wish folks would stop being so literal about the term "prestige class", thinking you shouldn't have PrC's like "acrobat" or "master thrower" that don't seem to actually be very "prestigious". Folks, it's just a word they picked to avoid a blander term like "advanced class" or "specialist class".

 

[FireLance]

My main issue with PrC's is simply that they are for the most part just specilisations. Especially for combat classes. Whatever happened to them being for specific orders/organisations within a campaign world, and few in number to boot?

Players happened. Players discovered that they enjoyed playing characters with prestige classes, whether because of flavor, cool mechanics or sheer power. Some players have an idea in mind for their character, and the core rules do not always give them the freedom to customize their characters in the way that they want. However, PrCs do.

Most PrC concepts are doable (without fancy new powers and abilities) as standard core classes or core class multiclassing. I believe that the fighter/mage combo doesn't need a PrC for it (as an example) because you gain the benefits of both classes but won't be as good if you stayed single class. Thats the trade off. To take a PrC just to overcome such that disadvantage makes the disadvantage pointless. That make sense?

It would make sense if multiclassing always results in a viable character. However, it does not always do so. It is alright if a fighter/wizard is not as good a fighter as a pure-classed fighter, nor as good a wizard as a pure-classed wizard. However, many players and DMs believe that a fighter/wizard is significantly less effective than a pure-classed fighter or a pure-classed wizard. Naturally, if you want to discourage multi-classing (or certain multi-classed combinations), that is a feature, not a bug. However, players and DMs who subscribe to the philosophy that every multi-class combination should result in a viable character would want something to redress the balance. It need not take the form of a PrC. It could take the form of a compensating feat, or changes to the core rules.

YMMV

Naturally, since everyone has different definitions of "fun" and "balance".

 

[FireLance]

The Radiant Servant of Pelor makes the cleric better at the unfun part of being a cleric (healing) at the cost of being worse at the fun part of being a cleric (melee combat - through a lower Hit Die, and a slightly reduced BAB). Turn Undead is fairly irrelevant.

Cheers!

That might be the best "acid test" of a PrC. Despite all the complaints about being "overpowered", how many people actually play one? And how effective are they compared to the other characters in the party? As long as every character has his "schtick", and no character overshadows another, why should it matter?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That might be the best "acid test" of a PrC. Despite all the complaints about being "overpowered", how many people actually play one? And how effective are they compared to the other characters in the party? As long as every character has his "schtick", and no character overshadows another, why should it matter?

Well, the overpowered PrCs clearly do overshadow the other party members and are more effective than others.

Naturally, since everyone has different definitions of "fun" and "balance".

Bah. You're just being reasonable. You dealt with the issue of the relatively balanced multiclass PrCs rather than the overly specialized or broken ones.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You know it's odd... Before starting work on my latest game, I'd have agreed with the OP about PrCs. But for some reason this game is shaping up differently. I think in large part it may have to do with the fact that my players aren't really looking for PrCs. They're planning their characters with the Core classes, and I find myself going, "Ooh, but that concept would fit fantastically with a Holy Liberator!" or "Gee, that character sounds like he'd be a perfect candidate for an Arcane Trickster..."

I'm finding myself excited at the prospect of introducing these PrCs into the campaign at some point, to give the players a chance to take them, if they like.

 

[woodelf]

Also, to be fair, I noticed a lot of more "unique" concepts in the Arcane and Divine Complete books than I did in Adventurer and Warrior. For some reason, the spellcasters PrCs seem to have been given more unique niches and abilities than the other classes, which have the "cherry-pick favorite class abilities and combine" feel to me.

Well, i haven't really looked at eth new Complete... books very closely, but if, as it seems, they parallel the D&D3E splatbooks reasonably well, i think i've got a large part of an explanation: D&D3E core already covers many, if not most, of the bases for physical, non- or semi-magical abilities (the sorts of things that might be beyond RL capabilities, but are treated more as abilities than as magic). However, when it comes to outright-magical, wizards-n-dreamstealers mystical mojo, the core books are pretty narrow. Combine that with the (IMHO) greater possibilities in that area, and there's a lot more room to come up with all-new stuff. Heck, all you need is a new kind of magic (dream magic, blood magic, candle magic), and you've got yourself a new class, with little-to-no overlap with existing spellcasters. Come up with a new fighting style, and it'll be sorta like one or more of the existing fighting styles available.

 

[painandgreed]

I really don't care that much about unique things being presented by a PrC. Classes are just a matter of training as far as I'm concerned. If all elves are trained as fighters and magic users, it makes little sence to make them alternate between fighter and wizard rather than simply even things out with a PrC* that is a combination of both. that said, I see PrCs as being special organizations and cultural classes rather than a way to pick out neat new powers. Not all exist to PCs and to do so often requires joining an organization which ussually involved duties to that organization. In other words, I see the main point of PrCs as being flavor to the individual campaign rather than paths of power for PCs.

*or even a core class. I've often thought of remaking the basic D&D elf as a core class.

 

[MerricB]

Well, the overpowered PrCs clearly do overshadow the other party members and are more effective than others.

Does this lead anywhere?

"The overpowered PrCs" is a lot like "the koalas in Antarctica" - a lovely phrase without actually having any content. We really need specifics and, most importantly, play of these characters in several different campaigns.

What makes it worse is that the challenges in different campaigns differ, which also distorts the experiences of character play.

I've heard a lot of talk over almost 5 years of the overpowered Cleric, but I'm yet to see one in my game. Heck, I'm lucky to see a pure cleric. Or even a character with any levels of cleric.

I have the feeling that there are characters that have the potential to be broken, but the player must actively work at breaking it. When I've played a cleric, it's been a particularly unbroken character, good at healing, casting bless and prayer and little else. I'm not sure that I'm in the minority, either.

Cheers!