Why Prestige Classes?

[wizardneedsfood]

Exactly. Feats work perfectly well to specialize characters beyond their basic class. Prestige Classes are redundant game feature. It also sets a bad precedent if you ask me. You CAN'T be a Dwarven Defender without the prestige class? Huh? Does that mean my fighter can't retire and buy a tavern if he doesn't have levels in the Innkeeper prestige class?

I don't know. I just think that feats, templates, and even styles (like the martial styles in OA) is perfectly able to get the job done. Beyond being a commercial success for so many companies, prestige classes are not needed at best and get in the way at worst. YMMV.

No, that's not what it means. Because all members of an organization don't have the related prestige class. In a unit of dwarven defenders, maybe only half of them will have the dwarven deferner PrC, being the really good ones. Just like assasins. A person from almost any class can be an assasin, but the heavily trained ones that focus just on that set of skills will end up similar to one another.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

I still think prestige classes are a great tool for the GM and the player.

That being said, if a GM allows the players to use every PrC in existence, they are just opening themselves to a world or hurt. Many may not be appropriate for the campaign, and many are bady designed. Part of the GM's job is laying guidlines and boundaries for the game. One thing I learned from years of GMing Hero/Champions, is that you need to be able to gently say "no" to the players (and be able to give helpful suggestions to the player on ways that they can guide their character creation to get what they want, but still fit into the campaing world).

In our games, one of the important steps in setting the flavor of the campaign world, is deciding which PrCs to allow. By creating a list of 20 or so PrCs, the GM is giving the players a very good idea of what kind of organizations and class concepts are appropriate. A player can still come back and ask if a certain unlisted PrC is appropriate, but it is still up to the GM to say yes or no.

That being said. Our group also places a lot of value on letting the players have a say in the direction of the campaign world. If a certain player has thier heart set on using a specific presitge class, the GM will make every attempt to fit it into the campaign world.

Having said all of that, our group (for the most part) does not have to contend with players who cherry-pick prestige classes for certain benefits with their only concern being to create the most munchkiny, min/maxed character. If this is a problem for some GMs, then they should probably disallow multi-classing, all PrCs, and anything that is not from the main three core books.

 

[Pants]

I've been playing DnD since before 3.0 came out and I've only had three player interested in taking a PrC:
1) Playing RttToEE - A Tielfing Wizard/Cleric of Boccob who wanted to progress as a MyT. He died before he got the chance.
2) Playing RttToEE - Same character playing a Dwarven Paladin/Dwarven Defender. The first time anyone has ever successfully taken levels in a PrC!
3) In my high level quest, a certain character has shown interest in taking the Archmage PrC, but I don't know if he'll actually do it or not.
4) In my steampunk game, a character has shown interest in becoming a Druid/Elemental Savant.

So far, most of the players stick with the core classes. Most of them really don't care about PrC's and are quite happy playing regular characters. In fact, if I find a good PrC that would fit well with a player's concept, I usually bring it up to them (if I am DMing). Most often, the player just doesn't care for it.
I'd actually like it if more of the players showed interest in taking PrC's, but they don't... oh well.

 

[Umbran]

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.

That's a problem with your players, not with PrCs themselves. When the carpenter whacks his thumb with a hammer, should he blame the concept of the hammer? Do you hate hit points because your players always want their characters to have more of them?

The wants of players are not controlled by the things published in the books. It isn't like there's a drug in the pages, that turns their brains off, or they get seduced to the Dark Side by something in a splatbook. They have free will, you know. They are responsible for their own actions.

 

[wingsandsword]

I think that part of the reason PrC's are so popular with players is that they let players know that their character really is what they want it to be.

If Joe Gamer wants Tharack the Fighter to be a proud and noble knight later, he can earn the title in-game, and have nothing special happen, or he can write down on the "Class" line "Crown Knight of the Kingdom" or something, and have a mostly fighter-type class that trades off some bonus feats for a few abilities related to the duties Tharack has to perform for his kingdom, or for mounted combat, or whatever knightly duties he's expected to perform.

By the same token, the player of a mage can take a PrC representing membership in an order he's tried to join or a school of magic he's been trying to learn, or a cleric can take a class representing a special priesthood of his deity (like the Specialty Priest classes in 2e which were often wildly different from clerics).

Another reason is that sometimes they support archetypes not supported by core classes. Loremaster is one. In 2e games (I started in 2e), I normally played sage/knowledge oriented characters who spent every proficiency slot/character point on knowledge related proficiencies, took lots of divination spells, and generally made my PC's into walking libraries. Unfortunately, while fun to play, it made this specialized sage pretty weak (when a 1st level Bard could know more with a lucky roll, and 2e multiclassing was a disaster). Now, with the Loremaster PrC, a knowledge/sage oriented spellcaster is a archetype supported by the core rules, and combining a good skill list and points, bardic knowledge, and continued spellcasting you support this type of character and make it equally useful as a dedicated Wizard or Cleric. By the same token, Duelists are another DMG PrC which is really just a way of supporting popular archetypes without adding new base classes. I've also known of people who like to play Clerics who aren't heavily armored tanks, instead being wandering mystics or seers (the Mystic base class from Dragonlance is great for this, I wish it was Core), but PrC's like Contemplative or Mystic Wanderer help to support the idea of a divine spellcaster who isn't a fighter-lite with healing spells and anti-undead abilities.

One problem 2e suffered toward the end was an endless proliferation of new (base) classes, and kits which were practically new classes. The Faiths and Avatars trilogy of books had a new character class, 1st to 20th level for every faith in Faerun, and several new "generic classes". PrC's help to keep this proliferation under control, by helping players start from the same foundation of base classes, with PrC's helping to reshape or refine these classes (or combinations of those classes).

 

[PJ-Mason]

That's a problem with your players, not with PrCs themselves. When the carpenter whacks his thumb with a hammer, should he blame the concept of the hammer? Do you hate hit points because your players always want their characters to have more of them?

The wants of players are not controlled by the things published in the books. It isn't like there's a drug in the pages, that turns their brains off, or they get seduced to the Dark Side by something in a splatbook. They have free will, you know. They are responsible for their own actions.

Yes i have a problem with my group.

I ALSO think that the prestige classe mechanic is both faulty and redundant. I've stated more than one reason why that has nothing to do with my gaming group's antics.

 

[Umbran]

I ALSO think that the prestige classe mechanic is both faulty and redundant. I've stated more than one reason why that has nothing to do with my gaming group's antics.

It isn't redundant. Feats do not work perfectly to specialize characters Some special abilities can be expressed well as feats, things like BAB, Saves, and spell use don't work well in such a form, IMHO.

In addition, giving a character enough feats so that they could fill out their specialization leads to problems similar to those found in systems that deconstruct classes so that you can simply buy class features with XP - loss of control for the DM, excessive complexity for the players trying to build, and an even larger vulnerability to min/max tweaking.

In general, your statements that the mechanic is faulty come down to your dislike of the execution of particular classes. You don't like assassins. You feel the PrCs in print are of poor quality. But those don't speak to the quality of the mechanic, in general. In addition, it seems highly likely that your feelings vis a vis quality could be highly flavored by your player's behavior. If they weren't trying to use PrCs as they were, you might find the much less objectionable.

All in all - there's a difference between "I don't like to use them" and "it is not a good mechanic". Your arguments lean hard to the former, rather than the latter. I, personally, don't like psionics much. But that doesn't mean that they stink as a mechanic.

 

[PJ-Mason]

I think that part of the reason PrC's are so popular with players is that they let players know that their character really is what they want it to be.

Sounds like a the same arguements i heard in favor of kits back in the day.
Had sages before kits and prestige classes and have had them since those game mechanics. Don't see a big difference.

If Joe Gamer wants Tharack the Fighter to be a proud and noble knight later, he can earn the title in-game, and have nothing special happen, or he can write down on the "Class" line "Crown Knight of the Kingdom" or something, and have a mostly fighter-type class that trades off some bonus feats for a few abilities related to the duties Tharack has to perform for his kingdom, or for mounted combat, or whatever knightly duties he's expected to perform.

By the same token, the player of a mage can take a PrC representing membership in an order he's tried to join or a school of magic he's been trying to learn, or a cleric can take a class representing a special priesthood of his deity (like the Specialty Priest classes in 2e which were often wildly different from clerics).

Again, this seems more like players not having any confidence in their roleplaying or character depth if they need an official stamp on their character saying that he is an Evocationist. Especially after already BEING a Evocation wizard specialist (core class ability) and havng feats like Spell Focus (evocation) and all the other things that already make a evocationist an evocationist without the need of a prestige class that does the same thing anyway.

Another reason is that sometimes they support archetypes not supported by core classes. Loremaster is one. In 2e games (I started in 2e), I normally played sage/knowledge oriented characters who spent every proficiency slot/character point on knowledge related proficiencies, took lots of divination spells, and generally made my PC's into walking libraries. Unfortunately, while fun to play, it made this specialized sage pretty weak (when a 1st level Bard could know more with a lucky roll, and 2e multiclassing was a disaster). Now, with the Loremaster PrC, a knowledge/sage oriented spellcaster is a archetype supported by the core rules, and combining a good skill list and points, bardic knowledge, and continued spellcasting you support this type of character and make it equally useful as a dedicated Wizard or Cleric. By the same token, Duelists are another DMG PrC which is really just a way of supporting popular archetypes without adding new base classes. I've also known of people who like to play Clerics who aren't heavily armored tanks, instead being wandering mystics or seers (the Mystic base class from Dragonlance is great for this, I wish it was Core), but PrC's like Contemplative or Mystic Wanderer help to support the idea of a divine spellcaster who isn't a fighter-lite with healing spells and anti-undead abilities.

But you can play those things without prestige classes to prove to you that your character IS how you are playing it. There are feats (and as you say some alternate core classes) that do things like that already. Thats why i think they (prestige classes) are redundant.

One problem 2e suffered toward the end was an endless proliferation of new (base) classes, and kits which were practically new classes. The Faiths and Avatars trilogy of books had a new character class, 1st to 20th level for every faith in Faerun, and several new "generic classes". PrC's help to keep this proliferation under control, by helping players start from the same foundation of base classes, with PrC's helping to reshape or refine these classes (or combinations of those classes).

I think the core classes, feats, and vastly improved multiclassing in the new edition took care of that. Especially clerics. Domains go a looong way to skipping right by that 2E problem that certaintly did exist.

LOL. I'd use that same example in different way. Prestige classes are the new Kit Proliferation Syndrome. Hmmm....KPS......

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

But if you have ever had a cleric (that didn't have Healing as a domain or tenet of their faith) that casts cure light wounds on people of different faiths in the party, then they are not playing their character appropriately. They're not healing them for prosylitization. They're healing them to get through the adventure. It's entirely mechanical. And that's what prestige classes are. They are a group of mechanics to hand pick wacky abilities from.

First, the clerics in your campaigns must be real jerks. I'd expect an ally/friend to heal me in an instant if he had the capacity, for no other reason than he liked me and we were working together towards a common goal. Friendship and simple recognition that an ally is more useful healthy than wounded are both examples of reasons for healing that are character appropriate.

Second. Yes, prestige classes are entirely mechanical. So are all the other rules in the book. Feats are a group of mechanics to hand pick wacky abilities from. Skills are a group of mechanics to hand pick wacky abilities from. Spells are a group of mechanics to hand pick wacky abilities from. Magic items adn magic item special abilities are a group of mechanics to hand pick wacky abilities from. The Core Classes are a group of mechanics to hand pick wacky abilities from.

They're ALL just mechanics.

 

[PJ-Mason]

It isn't redundant. Feats do not work perfectly to specialize characters Some special abilities can be expressed well as feats, things like BAB, Saves, and spell use don't work well in such a form, IMHO.

I haven't seen a class ability from any prestige class that could be turned into a feat or feat chain yet.

What kind of BAB, Save, or spell-use boosts or variations do prestige classes give you that core classes can't?

In addition, giving a character enough feats so that they could fill out their specialization leads to problems similar to those found in systems that deconstruct classes so that you can simply buy class features with XP - loss of control for the DM, excessive complexity for the players trying to build, and an even larger vulnerability to min/max tweaking.

I don't think that is the case. Characters don't need a ton of feats to become a specialist in evocation magics. Or be able to cast spells through their swords, or use their turning ability on things other than undead, any other things that a particular prestige class might give them.

Although i do agree that deconstruction methods can lead to lots of complex math and effort. I don't think eliminating prestige classes (as if that would EVER happen!) would lead to more complexity, probably the reverse i'd say.

In general, your statements that the mechanic is faulty come down to your dislike of the execution of particular classes. You don't like assassins. You feel the PrCs in print are of poor quality. But those don't speak to the quality of the mechanic, in general. In addition, it seems highly likely that your feelings vis a vis quality could be highly flavored by your player's behavior. If they weren't trying to use PrCs as they were, you might find the much less objectionable.

All in all - there's a difference between "I don't like to use them" and "it is not a good mechanic". Your arguments lean hard to the former, rather than the latter. I, personally, don't like psionics much. But that doesn't mean that they stink as a mechanic.

How about this: Is it possible that maybe my experience with my group gives me more insight as to how bad the prestige class game mechanic really is? Or is it automatically the "sour grapes" diagnosis for me?

Regardless, this problem with a my group is a fairly recent one. I've had a problem with prestige classes for almost since the release of 3E.

1. It is not a good mechanic because there already more than one mechanic (feats, templates, multiclassing) in the same system that already does what prestige classes do and that are less messy at it. You may or may not agree, of course.

2. Well known game designers don't even seem to be able to get a handle on how to do prestige classes, much less the average gamer. Or at least a lot of them certaintly don't seem to agree on it (including the guys who made the mechanic!) A game mechanic/model THAT subjective is not exactly a superior one. Feats and templates also have these problems as well, but to a lesser effect are much easier to deal with and do less damage to characters and campaigns (especially if taken away at some point. Taken away a prestige class after a few levels is way messy). They are also easier to gauge than pretige classes i believe.

3. One of the worst things about the game mechanics isn't even game mechanics. It is this "I'm not an eldtrich knight if i don't have the prestige class" syndrome that seems so wide spread amonst players since its advent. Its the same as 2E kits. What did they do before these things? Did no one ever play an Eldritch Knight before these game mechanics? This is the biggest defense of Prestige classes ("it brings flavor that would't be there otherwise!") so thats why i mention it. Its equally puzzling to me since with feats you can do these things. its even easier to do it with core classes than to create prestige classes.

In all i just think the prestige class method is clunky and very redundant. whether it effects me through my gaming group or not is just extra sludge under the bridge. :\