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

[Bagpuss]

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?

jh

Isn't that what a base class is for?

 

[Bagpuss]

And BTW, you're once again taking a relatively tiny subjective sample and declaring it an objective truth. If sometimes seems like "so many" people have a problem with PrCs, but they're still an immensely popular mechanic over the length and breadth of the audience as a whole.

It's his style of posting, every thread he starts seems phrased like a troll, rather than a genuine enquiry. I would put him on ignore his threads except usually there are some good responses in the threads he starts.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

That doesn't address the problem though.

Sure it does. PrC's are specifically about specialization.

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

Do the opposite? What specifically would that be? Generalization? If you want to be more generalized, you'd stick with the base classes, not a PrC. The only way I can see PrC's being faulted for overspecialization would be in the case of someone who wants a character to be able to do everything.

 

[Crothian]

If you want the opposite then you make a character with many base classes. You will be able to do a lot of different things but none of them very well.

 

[awayfarer]

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?

jh

What problem? Seriously, what problem is there? It's like saying "Why does vanilla not taste like mint chocolate chip?" It's because it doesn't. That doesn't mean that theres a problem with it, they're just two different things with different traits.

 

[painandgreed]

In fact, I'm almost convinced that PrCs have no business existing outside of a campaign setting (though that would seem to place an unreasonable burden on homebrew DMs).

I would agree with the first part, and disagree with the second. I managed to place most of the DMG PrCs into my homebrew with little trouble. Most are part of some organization that provides training (assassin, shadowdancer), some are more regional/cultural classes (dwarven defender, duelist), some are special cases that require finding a member already of that PrC (dragon disciple, loremaster, etc...). This also allows the DM to balance PrCs as they can add role playing difficulties to the class via and organization or not as they see fit to balance the class (much like how the paladin gets limitations).

 

[GreatLemur]

My problem with prestige classes has nothing to do with specialization (which, as has been pointed out, ain't really a universal quality of PrCs, anyway). I dislike them because they lock interesting abilities away behind extremely non-generic flavor, and their requirements are frequently used as justification for various penalty feats that should never have existed.

 

[wayne62682]

PrCs are supposed to specialize. The problem is that very few of them are WORTH TAKING.

Look in any of the Complete Books and I guarantee you'll find maybe two PrCs that scream "Hey this is cool, take me!", maybe one or two more that are heavily front-loaded and therefore will be good dips, and the rest are complete trash that are only useful on the 1% chance someone has that very concept in mind. Most of them are filler, and nothing more, and I really wonder some types what is going through the designers head when he comes up with a class that's pretty much worthless crap except to a very small niche.

The other problem is that many of them don't give enough of a benefit to offset what you give up. The Mystic Theurge is widely considered one of the WORST PrCs because, quite frankly, you end up sucking at both arcane AND divine spells due to trying to specialize in doing both. The class just doesn't work because you lose so much power to gain so little.

The issue is one where PrCs try to specialize, but half the time the execution is complete garbage and whoever writes it never seems to think that it can be done pretty much just as easy with a base class. Look at the "Swiftblade" class posted on the Wizards site. There's a thread in the CO forums with people just ripping this class apart and demonstrating why it's worthless to ever take; the paltry abilities you get aren't worth losing caster levels for because it makes you weaker than a straight caster.

In short: The problem with PrCs is that while they need to balance out so it's not the de-facto munchkin choice, they have to give you something that's actually worth taking the class for. Getting a second spell cast for free along with casting of one spell (to use an example, the Swiftblade has an ability that lets you get the effects of Blur when you cast Haste on yourself at a specific level) isn't worth jack squat if you have to give up a caster level to get it, let alone two or more. But most designers of PrCs seem to think "Hey, this is a neat idea" without thinking that special abilities SUCK compared to spells, so any special ability a PrC has needs to be better than a spell or it's not worth taking.

 

[Emirikol]

All the base classes are designed to be "Generalists". A "Generalist" can do a number of things moderately well, but nothing extraordinarily well.

I disagree. I think why a lot of folks don't like PrC's is because they, to quote Wayne, "Aren't Worth Taking." "Aren't worth taking" means that they are neither "powerful enough" nor "roleplayingly interesting enough."

Also, I feel that base classes are not generalists. Even the bard is specialized to the point where he's useless in many situations. It seems the opposite of the generalist theory.

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.

Why can't PrC's bring more generalization instead of overspecialization?

jh

 

[Storm Raven]

Why can't PrC's bring more generalization instead of overspecialization?

One question that needs to be answered first is what is meant by generalization and/or specialization. Several PrCs, for example, bridge the gap between two classes: the arcane trickster, the spellblade, and so on. They generally, allow a character to effectively "broaden" out of their niche and take on the characteristics of two classes, is this generalization? If so, then all you really need to do to achieve the goal of having "generalized" PrCs is to limit those allowed in the campaign to the "class bridgers".

Of course, in many cases, you don't really need a PrC to do this because of the multiclassing system implemented in 3e, so PrCs, in some cases, become redundant. But I don't think the problem is that they don't "generalize".