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

[Nifft]

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

Could you post some examples of "generalization"? From base classes or prestige classes, and don't forget that the Chameleon exists.

Thanks, -- N

 

[The_Gneech]

Am I the only person floating around who likes them the way they are? Anything that gets around that annoying "favored class" mechanic is a good thing in my book. On top of which I have found at least three cases where a prestige class exactly matched the character concept I was working on.

Sign me up as liking PrCs!

-TG

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

Again, like what? A guy who can do everything and rocks at it? Without a tradeoff of power? The reason you arent seeing these is ebcause it would be widely considered broken.

The Chameleon lets you fill different roles. So does the Master of Masks. Binder and Incarnate prc's expand versatility as well. Even hybrid classes like mystic theurge, arcane trickster, etc expand a character's ability to fill multiple roles at the same time (more effectively than standard MC'sing). The fochlurian lyricist also gives you a ton of spells, skills, etc. The trade off is you lose raw power for versatility. And since these classes can do a bit of everything, there isnt a need for many of them. You generally dont need one PRC for a guy who can fight, cast spells and sneak, and another for a guy who can sneak, cast spells, and fight.

About the only thing thats missing is something that lets you swap your ranger favored enemy on the fly, or some sort of fighter that lets weapon spec/focus/improved crit work on any weapon he wields.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

What do you mean by "do the opposite of overspecialization"? I'll argue that the Mystic Thurge, Elderitch Knight and Arcane trickster type classes do just that, for instance. Each lets you fill two rolls, but you're not as good at either (while not sucking entirely at either, like a pure multiclass PC may in many cases).

I thought the exact same thing.

I have a lot of problems with PRCs but overspecializatoin isn't one of my reasons.

 

[Andor]

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

Lots of things.

1) They flesh out NPC organizations. I realize that sounds hypocritical but again my problem with the common organization listed was less that it existed but that they have implied power levels completely out of whack with the common description of the world.

2) They allow the DM to fine tune his world. For example: If the GM wants truename magic to be a path to power in his world but an uncommon or advanced one it is a good use for the PrC concept.

3) They allow alternate builds that make the DMs players happy.

4) They allow fine shading of racial or cultural approaches to the common classes.

I'll add that I personally don't think all PrCs must belong to organizations or even require training. Some are simply a different focus for the players advancment. Examples of this would be PrCs like the Tempest or Mystic Theurge.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

What if there were more quasi-gestalt PrCs.

Frouge (10 level class)

D8 HD

Good BAB + good Fort
or
Medium BAB + good Fort and Ref

Fighter bonus feats - mat be spent on Fighter feats or Rogue special abilities.

1D6 SA per 3 levels

6 skill points + the skills of both classes

Levels in this class count for Rogues in whom can flank them and in what level ighter you are in qualifying for certain feats.


This is only a quick idea, but I think it evens out to a Fighter10/Rogue10 at level 20, but also allows you the special abilities of a rogue that you would have missed out on, plus a far more diverse skill selection. Is this something like what you are looking fo? I have truely read the whole thread, and I am still a little fuzy on what you want your end result to be. Have you seen the Factotum?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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."

Actually, for me many PrCs aren't worth taking because the cost/benefit ratio isn't high enough. I can get cool ability X, but it slows down my progression on ability Y, which I value highly. Does that mean it isn't powerful enough? I guess it might if what you mean by power is to gain something without giving up something else in return, but to me that wouldn't be "powerful enough," that would be just plain broken.

In addtion, the fact that I like my PCs to develop based upon their actual adventure experiences, rather than what cool thing I think I want them to be able to do, and most PrCs that I do find "roleplayingly interesting enough," just don't end up making sense for a particular character, and when I have talked to my DMs about PrC ideas hoping they will help make it make sense in the game for my character, they tend to either ignore it or mess with the idea, feeling like I have to "suffer" in some way to be able to get it.

 

[wayne62682]

The thing is.. like I said earlier: Spellcasters clearly dominate the game at high levels, so therefore any "cool ability" a PrC gives you MUST be able to compete with what the casters are throwing around at the same given level, or the PrC is comparatively weaker because you aren't gaining anything, per se. A lackluster ability that pales in comparison to what a "generalist" character can do at the same time makes it "not worth taking" in my opinion.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The thing is.. like I said earlier: Spellcasters clearly dominate the game at high levels, so therefore any "cool ability" a PrC gives you MUST be able to compete with what the casters are throwing around at the same given level, or the PrC is comparatively weaker because you aren't gaining anything, per se. A lackluster ability that pales in comparison to what a "generalist" character can do at the same time makes it "not worth taking" in my opinion.

QFTT. Too many caster PRC's give up spells for a few tricks. The acolyte of the skin is a great example of cool flavor, crap mechanics, with its 1/2 caster progression. Yay, you get a few piddly resistances and some claws (go mage melee!). Too bad you tossed away your 9th level spells sucker. Have fun with that -5 to caster level checks as well. Unless you're getting a TON, 2 (possibly 3) levels is the max I could see a casting PRC losing out on.

 

[wayne62682]

Exactly. Note that I don't think that's GOOD, but it's unfortunately the truth. Casters pwn everything in this game, so if the abilities you're getting aren't the equal of spells cast at the level you get them, your abilities are pretty much worthless. Great point on the Acolyte, by the way. The flavor of that class is beyond cool, but it's just not worth taking because of the stuff you have to give up. You would be better off taking a straight spellcaster simply because the spells you're losing out on are too good compared to the abilities the Acolyte gives you in "return"