Why can't PRC's do the opposite? Maybe that's why they touch a nerve.

I'm going to add my voice to the chorus of, "Huh?" that point out that the opposite of specialization would be a generalist who is pretty good at everything.

Of course PrC's specialize. That's what their supposed to do. That's not a weakness of PrC's. That is their function, or one of their functions.

Don't want to specialize? Then don't take a prestige class.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I like prestige classes, but I prefer custom designed ones. If I'm playing and looking through books for a concept, I am not using my imagination as much as if I were simply dreaming up a concept whole cloth. That may seem like extra work, but the DMGII offers good guidelines for creation.

IMV, only the Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard are core classes anyways. To be core they have to be generic and customizable on their own. They're archetypes. Additional classes, whether 20 levels, ten, five, or even short classes that start at Character Level 1, are all Prestige Classes because they are specific. This means the classes themselves have setting roles. Barbarians, as RAW, are only one type of many wildmen in the setting. Class variations, like in UA, allow for expansion to reflect different cultures, but in truth they are all just PrCs based off Fighters.

So, for me, the narrow-benefit for broad-penalty optimization of PrC classes is mitigated by requiring in-game justification. PrCs are made jointly by player and DM with setting rationales in place throughout.

While I like the very expansive number of character options PrCs allow, they do cause one problem for me as a DM. They mean no unique NPC can easily be dropped in a game without a ready prepped PrC to back up their unusual powers. That's much harder than older editions where classes were almost always mechanically the same, but descriptions allowed variations limited only by imagination. Setting justifications were needed, but not necessarily mechanical ones. (they have the power because it makes sense in the world and they have the archetype class) Because I create my own PrCs, I can come up with mechanical justifications after the fact. It's just time consuming.
 
Last edited:

Emirikol said:
Does it say somewhere that PrC's must be "specialized." I've always assumed that specialization was the point of PrC's, but yesterday I thought it may be interesting to look at this from a different point of view.. and ask if that premise is actually true.

The fact that they're called "prestige" classes strongly implies specialization of some sort. It implies that the character has focused his efforts to become good at specific things.

The thing is, I'm finding it hard to A) understand how a Prestige Class could be less specialized than the base classes (we need examples) and B) accept the premise that Prestige Classes are widely disliked. Other than very vocal complainers on the internet, I haven't heard much real-world grousing about them. Sure, there are an awful lot of bad PrC's out there, but the basic concept is sound, and there are plenty of good PrC's out there.
 

howandwhy99 said:
I like prestige classes, but I prefer custom designed ones.

I think that is the strength of the concept. PrC's should be either carefully selected or created by a DM for his campaign. They help make each DM's world unique. Based on many of the complaints I've seen online, I think a lot of problems with PrC's stem from the notion that any and every PrC exists in a given campaign world. That just doesn't have to be the case.
 

Remove ads

Top