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

[Mouseferatu]

You are wrong to assume that this is a problem native to the D20 system, or that it is not feasible under D&D basic design assumptions. While it is certainly true that D&D encourages a 'niche', the whole point of a class system is to encourage the opposite of specialization by forcing players to 'pay' for broad variaty of class benefits that you don't need and which - if you were inclined to power game - you would willingly trade for being better at the one thing that you do.

I didn't claim it was "native" to D20. Sure, it's an issue with lots of games, but those games aren't under discussion at the moment.

I maintain, however, that the class system does not encourage the opposite of specialization. The whole point of classes is to ensure that everyone fits a niche; therefore, improvement in a class also, practically by definition, implies improvement within that niche. While there are lots of things one can do with a fighter, or a wizard, or a rogue, there's a much narrower selection of options that provide the "best" options (speaking now purely in a numerical/tactical sense). And of course while many people choose not to take those options for RP purposes, and more power to them, those characters will never be as effective at the gamist aspects of D&D as those who do even a modicum of "powergaming."

In any party of even moderately numerically effective characters, even if nobody ever touches a PrC, the characters will grow more and more specialized, and more and more divergent from one another, as they advance in levels. There's nothing unique to PrCs about this. It happens under the game's basic assumptions about advancement.

PrCs may very well inflate that aspect even further, I won't argue that. But they neither cause it, nor are the only source of it.

 

[FireLance]

That doesn't address the problem though. The problem is that they overspecialize. Why can't they do the opposite for the same level of power?

They can. The Chameleon from Races of Destiny is a case in point. As for the reason why many of them don't, I guess it is the way that many PrCs are conceived. The starting point is usually a concept, theme or ability, e.g. "fighter-mage", or "mounted combat specialist", or "demon hunter", or "can hide almost anywhere", or even "ultimate generalist", and this is usually narrower than the more generic base classes.

 

[Mouseferatu]

They can. The Chameleon from Races of Destiny is a case in point. As for the reason why many of them don't, I guess it is the way that many PrCs are conceived. The starting point is usually a concept, theme or ability, e.g. "fighter-mage", or "mounted combat specialist", or "demon hunter", or "can hide almost anywhere", or even "ultimate generalist", and this is usually narrower than the more generic base classes.

Of course, even the chameleon doesn't really offer as wide a range as it appears, since you can only have access to one or two "ability sets" at any one time, and even when you do, you're still not as good as a "real" member of a class who uses said ability sets.

It's also, at least IMO, ridiculously complex at high levels, but maybe that was just the guy playing it at the time.

 

[Andor]

I would like to point out that as I understand it Monte Cook justified the inclusion of PrC's into the game primarily on the grounds that they encouraged the DM to invent just these sorts of large organizations and that the benefit to the game of this was greater than the negative impact mechanically of having the PrC's.

I reiterate, the inclusion of PrC's is the single biggest design failure of 3rd edition.

You sort of dodged my point there. My problem isn't the existence of these organizations, but the large number of high level characters the fluff usually implies to exist in them.

I have to disagree with about PrCs, they are a great design feature of 3.X which (like any powerful tool) can be misused. That's why good GMs pay attention to what their players are doing and poor ones wonder why their game is breaking down.

 

[Celebrim]

I didn't claim it was "native" to D20. Sure, it's an issue with lots of games, but those games aren't under discussion at the moment.

As I understood your argument, you presented the problem as being one particular to D&D and which was particularly problematic in D&D. I see the problem as one which is general to all game systems, and which in fact is relatively mild in D&D compared to other game systems. In fact, quite arguably older versions of D&D (pre-unearthed arcana) which used more or less a strict class system did not have this problem at all precisely because they did use a strict class system. It's very difficult to power game a strict class system by being specialized.

I maintain, however, that the class system does not encourage the opposite of specialization.

Compared to what? Compared to point buy? Compared to what? Relative to any other game system I've ever played - including Amber for crying out loud - a class system most certainly does encourage the opposite of specialization.

While there are lots of things one can do with a fighter, or a wizard, or a rogue, there's a much narrower selection of options that provide the "best" options (speaking now purely in a numerical/tactical sense).

And I would like to point out that these options are available not because of the class system per se, but the parts of the D&D system designed to encourage flexibility and which are most like point buy - skills and feats, for example. The class system itself is designed to resist the draw of over specialization.

And of course while many people choose not to take those options for RP purposes, and more power to them, those characters will never be as effective at the gamist aspects of D&D as those who do even a modicum of "powergaming."

Which has nothing at all to do with whether or not a game system is classed based and everything to do with RPG's in general.

PrCs may very well inflate that aspect even further, I won't argue that. But they neither cause it, nor are the only source of it.

I didn't claim that they cause it or that they are the only source of it. Any flexibility you give to the players over the creation and advancement of the character will tend to create oppurtunities to specialize and hense powergame. But the class system itself, by virtue of being inflexible, is the opposite of this. And D&D, by virtue of being pretty much the premier class based system, is by its very nature the most tolerant of power gaming because it can afford to be. Most point buy systems by contrast simply and explicitly advise the DM to forbid power gaming by fiat because they know that particular combinations of powers or particularly abusable single trick builds are game wrecking.

 

[Celebrim]

You sort of dodged my point there.

I don't think I dodged it at all. I was pointing out that to the designer, the main point of having PrC's was having these organizations and the implied large numbers of high level NPC foils/allies was essential to driving the sort of RP experience Monte saw as beneficial to the game.

My problem isn't the existence of these organizations, but the large number of high level characters the fluff usually implies to exist in them.

The two ideas are intrinsic to each other. If Monte didn't want organizations stuffed full of high level NPC's to be part of the game (as they are in his own game world), then he wouldn't have pressed for PrC's to be part of the game.

I have to disagree with about PrCs, they are a great design feature of 3.X which (like any powerful tool) can be misused.

I would like to know what you think PrC's do for the DM, given your misgivings about the organizations that PrC's imply.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As I understood your argument, you presented the problem as being one particular to D&D and which was particularly problematic in D&D. I see the problem as one which is general to all game systems, and which in fact is relatively mild in D&D compared to other game systems. In fact, quite arguably older versions of D&D (pre-unearthed arcana) which used more or less a strict class system did not have this problem at all precisely because they did use a strict class system. It's very difficult to power game a strict class system by being specialized.

It's particular to D&D, to the extent that classes are specializations by definition. (More on that in a moment). So while it's not unique to D&D by any means, it is particular to D&D's design.

And while it's difficult to powergame a strict class system through specialization, the initial argument wasn't about powergaming; it was about specialization in general. A class system is, by its very definition, more specialized than a skill-based system such as GURPS or WoD. In those, you can choose to play someone who's kind of good at magic, and kind of good at stealth, and kind of good at swordplay, but is no master of any of them. In a strict class sytem, you cannot do that. You are forced into a specialization--fighter or caster or stealthy guy--from which you cannot ever emerge.

3E has less of that than prior editions of D&D, what with the easier multiclassing rules, the options inherent to feats and skills, and so forth. But that doesn't alter the fundamental fact that classes are specializations, pure and simple. You need no longer remain within said specializations, but they're still where you start, and still where you're best designed to proceed if you want to remain more than marginally effective as compared to others.

Compared to what? Compared to point buy? Compared to what? Relative to any other game system I've ever played - including Amber for crying out loud - a class system most certainly does encourage the opposite of specialization.

And again, all I can say is that not only do our experiences differ but I think we must be using different definitions of certain words. Classes are specializations. They're niches. They're archetypes. They are a collection of prechosen skills and abilities and functionalities whose entire purpose is to ensure that a character who takes Class X remains at least marginally focused on abilities specific to Class X.

But then, I don't consider specialization to equal or equate to powergaming, though they certainly can and do go hand-in-hand, nor do I consider specialization to be a bad thing, when the game is constructed with the multi-person party in mind from the get-go.

 

[Celebrim]

And again, all I can say is that not only do our experiences differ but I think we must be using different definitions of certain words. Classes are specializations.

That's almost always the case in any argument, so I'd say that is a safe bet.

And while it's difficult to powergame a strict class system through specialization, the initial argument wasn't about powergaming; it was about specialization in general.

No, it wasn't. Please reread the initial post again. Do you see the word 'specialization' anywhere in that post? In fact, the original poster wants to make so clear what it is that he's talking about that he writes 'over specialization' as a single word. So, if you are just talking about specialization in general, then I'm afraid you've carried the conversation onto a slight tangent.

Classes do force a certain degree of specialization on to a player, but in practice they tend to do the opposite compared to any other system that we would compare them to. Classes force a certain degree of breadth to a character which in practice you never see except from pure role players in other sorts of game systems. For example, in a point system, a wizard concept would never 'waste' as many points on base attack bonus as a wizard in D&D 'wastes'. While in theory you can create characters of greater breadth with point buy than classes, in practice this almost never happens except in games were the focus is so much on roleplaying that conflict of any sort never even comes up. By far, the most specialized characters I've ever seen were created in WW's Story Teller system and Amber diceless roleplaying.

A class system is, by its very definition, more specialized than a skill-based system such as GURPS or WoD.

I disagree. I disagree that this is by definition, and I disagree that this is true in practice. By definition, a skill-based system also allows a greater oppurtunity for specialization than a class based system. And by your own admission, "And of course while many people choose not to take those options for RP purposes, and more power to them, those characters will never be as effective at the gamist aspects of D&D as those who do even a modicum of "powergaming."" It likewise follows that those characters in point buy systems which do not take the oppurtunity to over specialize will never be as effective at the gamist conflicts in those systems as those who do not do do even a modicum of specializes. And hense, in practice, your 'jack of all trades, master of none' is almost never seen except by newbies that envision thier character as 'master of all trades' or pure role players - for which the system itself is almost irrelevant.

3E has less of that than prior editions of D&D, what with the easier multiclassing rules, the options inherent to feats and skills, and so forth. But that doesn't alter the fundamental fact that classes are specializations, pure and simple.

Again, we have the same point of disagreement. Classes are not specializations, pure and simple, in that no class is so specialized that they only do one thing. Even the Wizard is 'forced' to pay for what is largely useless base attack bonus advancement. Classes aren't specializations. They are niches, but the goal of keeping archetypes separate and distinct is only part of the goals of having a class system. Two of the other goals is keeping those archetypes balanced and broad enough to be, for lack of a better word, interesting.

But then, I don't consider specialization to equal or equate to powergaming, though they certainly can and do go hand-in-hand, nor do I consider specialization to be a bad thing, when the game is constructed with the multi-person party in mind from the get-go.

Again, this thread is not about specialization so much as 'overspecialization'. Even if I were to concede that 'classes were specializations pure and simple', and I don't, it would have no bearing over whether or not I could argue that PrC's are examples of over specialization. From either view it is pretty straight forward to advance the argument that classes are as specialized as they need to be without the need for a new sort of even more specialized class.

 

[Baron Opal]

I've been thinking about PrC's and I think I may have found part of the problem why so many people are so unhappy with them.
P.s. that and just having a level minimum rather than all the other 'stuff.'

I think they're very spiffy myself. The majority of complaints I've seen are:

• They offer too much power for a character of similar level.
• They are a needless shortcut to careful feat choice or multiclassing.

These are avoided if you simply make your own. "Simply" is the hard part, I grant. For the most part I tie them to organizations, although having class levels is not necesary to be a member in the organization.

I agree that the requirements for classes is too involved. You shouldn't need to plot out your character from birth to take a prestige class. If you want to be an exceptional archer, I let you decide just how many of the archery feats you want to take. As a rule, I have 2-3 entry criteria: a minimum BAB or spell level plus a feat and perhaps a skill or save minimum. I balance them to be roughly equivalent in power to a character of equal level to the base class, and I keep in mind what they are giving up to take the class.

I reiterate, the inclusion of PrC's is the single biggest design failure of 3rd edition.

It's an achievement, not a failure. The failure is in the utilization and lack of guidance of use.

 

[hong]

D&D is intended to force party cooperation, to give everyone a chance to shine under different circumstances, and to ensure that no one character or character type can "do it all," and still do it well.

When 4E comes, this silly and artificial enforcement of a stereotyped party makeup will be third against the wall.