Why Prestige Classes?

[PJ-Mason]

Ack. You know, when 3E was just around the corner and everything was new and you only got tidbits of info, i thought the prestige class idea was the greatest thing.

Now i hate the damn things. I know that my players personally are WAY too wrapped up in prestige classes. One of them doesn't even care whether its fits the campaign or not, he just wants new abilities. He looks so sad when i laugh at his characters. I used to have a great gaming group who came up with interesting characters. Now i have players that come at me with their 1st level characters all plotted out through to 20th level with x levels in this, and x levels in that. They even have helped me out by listing at levels i am required to introduce x npc group so they can get this and that. All i can say is "Hey, do you actually NEED a DM anymore? You seem to have the campaign all wrapped up. Let me know how it goes!"

It doesn't help that 90% of prestige classes are either broken (too powerful or just messy), only good for npc's (or solo pc's that are no good for the rest of the group), or just flimsy. By flimsy i mean like the Assassin. Take out the Death attack (by making it a rogue special ability perhaps) and it falls in on itself and isn't really any more than another name for rogue levels. Any prestige class where you can take out 1 class ability and it falls apart wasn't worth the effort in the first place. Most prestige classes are better off as a feat or maybe a feat chain. Compared to feats and templates, prestige classes are just much more messier way to specialize characters.

Aaahhhh. That felt real good to vent. Thank you.

 

[Snoweel]

I don't like PrC's that don't force a sacrifice, especially the sacrificing of versatility - the bread-and-butter of the Player Character, imo.

For this reason, I prefer PrC's to be NPC-only, since the typical "adventurer" is best served by sticking to Core classes.

 

[Neo]

I don't like PrC's that don't force a sacrifice, especially the sacrificing of versatility - the bread-and-butter of the Player Character, imo.

For this reason, I prefer PrC's to be NPC-only, since the typical "adventurer" is best served by sticking to Core classes.

Prestige Classes arent really about sacrifice though, they are about specialisation..focuisng class direction towards one specific goal, aim, belief, religion or style.

 

[Snoweel]

Prestige Classes arent really about sacrifice though, they are about specialisation..focuisng class direction towards one specific goal, aim, belief, religion or style.

From the stated goal of 3.x game balance, any option that is better than another option in one way, and equal in every other way, 'breaks' game balance.

I'm sure that was not the goal of PrC's.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They even have helped me out by listing at levels i am required to introduce x npc group so they can get this and that. All i can say is "Hey, do you actually NEED a DM anymore? You seem to have the campaign all wrapped up. Let me know how it goes!"

I would, instead of laughing at them, attempt to take the opportunity to get them interested in their character's place in the game world. Call it an artefact from my WoD days, but I like it when the players have some input into the way the story goes. If they want to meet up with group X and become a Y of The Order of X, why not? Why not set things up in such a way so that this particular story has the characters run into some Xs and work together for an adventure. Then the PC can prove himself to them and join their ranks. It gives the player an in-game goal to attempt, and gets them involved in the game world.

When a player wants to get a PrC, you're handed a story hook on a silver platter. They're doing the work for you. Keep in mind that campaign building can be a communal affair, and doesn't have to rest entirely on the DM's shoulders. Sometimes players have good ideas too. And sometimes they want a certain kind of story with a certain kind of goal in their adventures.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

He looks so sad when i laugh at his characters.

 

[pogre]

I allow PrCs if the player shows me that it is natural evolution for his character and it fits the campaign world. Most of my players run core classes only.

 

[demiurge1138]

I made a mistake. Wrong button. Sorry.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

From the stated goal of 3.x game balance, any option that is better than another option in one way, and equal in every other way, 'breaks' game balance.

So basically what you're saying is "3.5 dwarves"?

 

[aurance]

Prestige Classes arent really about sacrifice though, they are about specialisation..focuisng class direction towards one specific goal, aim, belief, religion or style.

As the number of PrCs ridiculously increases, the probability that you will find a PrC specialization that you were going to emulate anyway with core classes increases - continually decreasing the number of roles that can be filled with core classes.

Now we have multiple PrCs for archers, swordsmen, knights, unarmed combatants, etc. so that the core classes are now the specialized ones, an option you turn to only when you can't find a PrC that somewhere someone wrote that does everything you want it to do, abilities pieced together with some tenuous role-playing link.

PrCs can be removed altogether and virtually all playable archetypes can be preserved. If you want to play archers, swordsmen, knights, unarmed combatants, etc., you can do it perfectly well with core classes alone without searching for that uber-specialized published PrC.