Why LEVEL is never a prerequisite for PrCls

[Psychic Warrior]

(inspired from a thread in House Rules)

Isn't it there actually an explicit rule or at least guideline since the 3.0 DMG that suggested the DM not to use character level as a requirement for a PrCl?
I think there is, but I am not 100% sure if in some supplements there have been any PrCl with such a requirement.

I'd like to know from you what is the real reason for this. I seem to remember that the original idea behind this was that all characters should be open to qualify for PrCls, and a certain level could make it easier, but should not be required. A supporting idea was that "level" isn't an in-character concept and therefore it's always better not to have to explain why a certain level is required.

Now after all these years I've seen hundreds of PrCl, ALL OF WHICH were designed exactly to put a MINIMUM level to qualify, either by requiring a certain BAB or a certain skill rank.

Gamers are quite used to this way of design, and I think that most are ready to support it's "goodness", but somehow it bothers me.

If the PrCl seems like it really should be open to any character equally (not there are many examples, but imagine a PrCl about being admitted to a noble or knightly order), why not using character level and forget about those tricks that put a minimum level anyway? What would you use instead?

I don't understand why character level has become a taboo in PrCl requirement... no reason to be a sacred cow because it isn't older than 3ed. I'd like to know what problems I could encounter in a PrCl designed with such a requisite.

Essentially by requiring a certain character level you are seriously limiting the amount of 'flavour' a PrC is going to have. Skill, feats, BAB etc all add to the 'flavour' of a PrC, imo, reducing is to solely a level requirement (and if it isn't solely that then the level requirement is moot) sucks most, if not all, of that which makes a PrC unique. ANy set of skills, feats, BAB etc can be used to get the PrC in question as long as you attain an meta game, predetermined level - sounds kinda dull to me but I've alway s saw PrC as a unique and character-building (as in background and roleplay type) of experience.

 

[Li Shenron]

Essentially by requiring a certain character level you are seriously limiting the amount of 'flavour' a PrC is going to have. Skill, feats, BAB etc all add to the 'flavour' of a PrC, imo, reducing is to solely a level requirement (and if it isn't solely that then the level requirement is moot) sucks most, if not all, of that which makes a PrC unique.

Hang on never I would take away skills or feats or spells from the prerequisites. Actually I always used to say to my players that prerequisites make up half of a PrCl: in fact requisites and 1st level abilities is what ALL members of a PrCl have in common, not 10th-level abilities!

But it's the indirectly using of flavor requisites (which are anyway more than flavor, they are part of the PrCl abilities, and usually advancing in the PrCl improves what you held as entry requisites) for setting the entry level that makes me doubt.

Sometimes it's fine, but other times it's not. For example, if I wanted a PrCl to be available more or less at the same level to every class, how could I do that? Not by using BAB or ranks as requirements, because it would either make it available too early to someone or too late for someone else.

 

[Li Shenron]

The only problem I have with this argument is that the factors used - base attack bonus, and skill ranks - are also abstracted from the characters abilities. With the wizard shadow dancer example - if the wiard is an elf with a high dex and has invested valuable feats in boosting his hide, he could conceivably be better at hiding than the rogue who qualified for the PrC two levels ago... but entry to the class is limited based on the more metagamy (and level dependant) skill ranks, rather than total skill modifier. If you just gave in and converted the effective character level requirement to an actual character level requirement and made the skill or attack roll requirements based off total modifier isntead of base ranks, you would see more creative backgrounds for the PrCs and IMO be no more or less metagamey than the requirements already are.

edit: I might be missing something, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that level should be the only requirement for a PrC. Simply that since the requirements for most are set up intentionly to set a minimum level, that part of it could be pulled out and made explicit, while the other requirements represented specialization of a less metagame nature. Compare the requirements "10 ranks in Weeble wobbling" to "Level 7 and Weeble wobbling modifier +13". Both require a minumum level and that the character have focused some effort on learning to wobble Weebles well, but the first is considered more proper than the second. Why?

I think I could not have explained better my same doubts about skills and BAB

One extra minor thing is when prestige classes designed for arcane casters require for instance "ability to cast 3rd level spells". I'm not sure, but I do not think it is an intentional design choice to always delay sorcerers compared to wizards (like sorcerer needed another small penalty...). However I don't know how this could be fixed, because changing to "arcane caster level 5" is open to abuses (it's possible to increase your caster level beyond your class level), and probably most of those classes aren't suitable for Bards for example.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This thread lines up very neatly with some of my ideas for my next campaign.

Specifically, I want to introduce testing for the entry requirements for many PrCs. No more "iron will" required. No more "base attack 6".

If the PC can get his skill up high enough to complete the entrance exam by hook or by crook, he's in. Of course the entrance exam will be set according to the appropriateness of the individual (a traditionally minded dwarf with a good work ethic might be meeting his peers to qualify for dwarven defender - but that tearaway dwarf with no beard will be up against the best of the best...)

BUT

There's still an issue of power. It shouldn't be possible to pick up initiate of the seven veils before 10 level or so (It's just too good...) for instance.

Flat out limiting minimum character level seems like a good enough restriction. Certainly makes more sense than the "bardic knowledge, evasion, speak druidic, 1st level arcane and divine spells, oh why don't we just say bard 1/rogue 2/druid 1 and get it over with"...

 

[Li Shenron]

BTW, of course as a DM I exert my control over available PrCl. And to tell the whole truth, I can actually allow characters to enter a PrCl even if they miss a prerequisite, if I don't see any problems with it, for example because they didn't actually know which prcl were available to qualify before the story led them to invitation into one.

However, that is what I do IMC, but here I wanted to discuss general design.

 

[Li Shenron]

Certainly makes more sense than the "bardic knowledge, evasion, speak druidic, 1st level arcane and divine spells, oh why don't we just say bard 1/rogue 2/druid 1 and get it over with"...

The original principle wasn't bad tho... If you require for instance "Evasion", in 3.5 you'd allow Rogues and Rangers to qualify; however you could have other classes (from non-core books) with same abilities, and so they'd qualify as well. Style-wise I agree that it's better than requiring Rogue level X, because in that case it is really restricted to Rogues only.

What I don't like is if the ability is chosen only to set the level (or worse, to set a single core class, after the official principle is that of not doing so), for example if "Evasion" was required for a PrCl which focuses on rogues abilities to pick lock.
Or if "Remove Disease" is required to implicitly allow only Paladins to qualify, but then the PrCl has nothing to do with healing but only with specializing in riding your mount.

Furthermore, to rely only on such a requisite is dangerous, because it's possible that another non-core class has Remove Disease at 1st level.

 

[glass]

I have to say, I don't really get the difference between advanced classes and PrCs.

I've always wondered about that.


glass.

 

[seankreynolds]

What I don't like is if the ability is chosen only to set the level (or worse, to set a single core class, after the official principle is that of not doing so), for example if "Evasion" was required for a PrCl which focuses on rogues abilities to pick lock.
Or if "Remove Disease" is required to implicitly allow only Paladins to qualify, but then the PrCl has nothing to do with healing but only with specializing in riding your mount.

You're right, and that's bad PrC design -- it's basically just "class level X" with a new coat of paint.