Why Prestige Classes?
- Thread starter DragonLancer
- Start date
Evilhalfling
Adventurer
I fell in love with the way PrCs are treated in Wheel of Time.
The classes are few, but well known. And getting into them is almost a necessity for charater development. I am playing a homebrew world and have a few PrC that represented the best of a class and postion. Knights had an order and were the only landholders, you could be born into that rank, and be a knight w/o the class but outsiders could earn it. There were also Valaysian Mages who earned the right to carry a rune staff, otherwise you were a wizard of no importance until you proved yourself.
Then came the ultlity classes of 3.5 - Mys Th, Eld Kt, Ar Tr, who seem more of a logical progression for a multiclass char than a strange and mystic order.
this has watered down the concept in my game, *shrug* over 3 years, 3 campaigns 3-12th lvl only 2 pcs have taken PrC, with 2 others that died first.
that seems about right.
The classes are few, but well known. And getting into them is almost a necessity for charater development. I am playing a homebrew world and have a few PrC that represented the best of a class and postion. Knights had an order and were the only landholders, you could be born into that rank, and be a knight w/o the class but outsiders could earn it. There were also Valaysian Mages who earned the right to carry a rune staff, otherwise you were a wizard of no importance until you proved yourself.
Then came the ultlity classes of 3.5 - Mys Th, Eld Kt, Ar Tr, who seem more of a logical progression for a multiclass char than a strange and mystic order.
this has watered down the concept in my game, *shrug* over 3 years, 3 campaigns 3-12th lvl only 2 pcs have taken PrC, with 2 others that died first.
that seems about right.
Arcane Runes Press said:
Agreed! So WHY have just another game mechanic that isn't necessary. Why not simplify things instead of complicate them?
I think 3E's motto (or at least it used to be) of options (or was it choices?) is great. I just don't think prestige classes are so much an extra option as much as they are an extra complexity. More trouble than they are worth. They don't all suck, so most of them do to the point they aren't worth the bother. To some, anyway.
Last edited:
Faraer said:
*Shrugs* ALL of them?
Certaintly i believe its at least most of them. I haven't really run into any that coulddn't be done with multclassing and feats. Prestige class abilities can easily be turned into feats or core class options (i'll beat the assassin horse again and use the Death Attack example as either a feat or rogue special ability).
fanboy2000
Adventurer
I've solved most of my problems with PrCs by making a list of PrCs that exist in my campaign world and presenting them to my players. If they really, really, really, want to take a PrC not listed, then I have to approve it and they must attempt to convince me. I'm prety conservitive with PrCs, so it's not easy.
By doing this, I've found that players naturaly tend to see how their character fits into the world. I ask them to tell me before hand what PrC they want (about 1 level before hand, to show that they are training for it.) I don't find Prestifes Classes any more complicated than normal multi-classing.
Here's a good example of a PrC that adds flavor to the campaign: The Heir of Siberys from Eberron. It is the only way to get a Siberys dragonmark, there is not clear path to the PrC, it is not suited for any one class. Some PrCs are obviously for fighers, monks, wizards, etc . . . that's just tacky. this one essentaly asks you to be high level, and never, ever, ever, have a dragon mark. Oh, and if you gain levels in this PrC, you're probably going to be hunted down. It's only 3 levels, so while it distracts you from your normal class route, it isn't an end unto itself.
You could make a Siberys mark feat, but that would be the same. Siberys marks are supposed to be rare, and their supposed to interupt your life. By makeing it a PrC, it distracts your character enough from his life to make it beliveable roleplaying wise. I like it.
That said, PrCs do have some serious flaws.
1. If a PrC allows +1 caster level progression for spells every level, then there is almost no reason for a sorcerer not to take it from a min/max perspective. Sorcerers get two things from the sorserer class, familer progression and spells. Familers don't give you a lot, so if a PrC gives you +1 spells every level, then there is almost no reason not to take it. Such PrCs are inherantly better than taking the class up to 20!
2. If a PrC causes a character to lose caster levels in exchange for an ability, the ability is almost never worth it.
3. Wizards are almost in the same position as sorcerers when it comes to PrCs. Wizards get bonus feats, but only item creation and metamagic. If your not interested in either one of those (and many players aren't) PrCs start to look atractive. Particulary if you don't have to give-up caster levels.
4. Many PrCs are simply better versions of a base class. Oh sure, you may give up some ability you don't use in exchange for improving an ability you use a lot. I had a ranger in my game who never cast spells, didn't even write down what spells they had prepaired. She was an excellent archer, and took the Order of the Bow PrC. Now what kind of trade-off was giving up spell progress for her? None. The balancing facter of trading one class ability for another was nill.
In 3.5 the designers tried to keep classes from being front loaded so that people would have incentive to stay in the class for more than one level. for some reason, it didn't ocure to them to look at the wiz/sor classes.
The Eldritch Knight is a good PrC because it allows a wizard or sorcerer to have a good BAB (the one thing stopping wizards from being adiquate fighters) and trades off about 2 caster levels. (Only one, if you wait a really long time to take it.) The 2 caster levels are a good trade of in this case because your replacing it with a game mechanic that is usefull at all levels, just like the spell progression would be. If the Eldritch Knight runs out of spells, then they can fall back on normal attacking. A standared wiz/sor would have a hard time doing that with their low BAB and low HD.
No feat exists that gives a wizard a good BAB and a higher HD.
By doing this, I've found that players naturaly tend to see how their character fits into the world. I ask them to tell me before hand what PrC they want (about 1 level before hand, to show that they are training for it.) I don't find Prestifes Classes any more complicated than normal multi-classing.
Here's a good example of a PrC that adds flavor to the campaign: The Heir of Siberys from Eberron. It is the only way to get a Siberys dragonmark, there is not clear path to the PrC, it is not suited for any one class. Some PrCs are obviously for fighers, monks, wizards, etc . . . that's just tacky. this one essentaly asks you to be high level, and never, ever, ever, have a dragon mark. Oh, and if you gain levels in this PrC, you're probably going to be hunted down. It's only 3 levels, so while it distracts you from your normal class route, it isn't an end unto itself.
You could make a Siberys mark feat, but that would be the same. Siberys marks are supposed to be rare, and their supposed to interupt your life. By makeing it a PrC, it distracts your character enough from his life to make it beliveable roleplaying wise. I like it.
That said, PrCs do have some serious flaws.
1. If a PrC allows +1 caster level progression for spells every level, then there is almost no reason for a sorcerer not to take it from a min/max perspective. Sorcerers get two things from the sorserer class, familer progression and spells. Familers don't give you a lot, so if a PrC gives you +1 spells every level, then there is almost no reason not to take it. Such PrCs are inherantly better than taking the class up to 20!
2. If a PrC causes a character to lose caster levels in exchange for an ability, the ability is almost never worth it.
3. Wizards are almost in the same position as sorcerers when it comes to PrCs. Wizards get bonus feats, but only item creation and metamagic. If your not interested in either one of those (and many players aren't) PrCs start to look atractive. Particulary if you don't have to give-up caster levels.
4. Many PrCs are simply better versions of a base class. Oh sure, you may give up some ability you don't use in exchange for improving an ability you use a lot. I had a ranger in my game who never cast spells, didn't even write down what spells they had prepaired. She was an excellent archer, and took the Order of the Bow PrC. Now what kind of trade-off was giving up spell progress for her? None. The balancing facter of trading one class ability for another was nill.
In 3.5 the designers tried to keep classes from being front loaded so that people would have incentive to stay in the class for more than one level. for some reason, it didn't ocure to them to look at the wiz/sor classes.
The Eldritch Knight is a good PrC because it allows a wizard or sorcerer to have a good BAB (the one thing stopping wizards from being adiquate fighters) and trades off about 2 caster levels. (Only one, if you wait a really long time to take it.) The 2 caster levels are a good trade of in this case because your replacing it with a game mechanic that is usefull at all levels, just like the spell progression would be. If the Eldritch Knight runs out of spells, then they can fall back on normal attacking. A standared wiz/sor would have a hard time doing that with their low BAB and low HD.
No feat exists that gives a wizard a good BAB and a higher HD.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
PJ-Mason said:
Woa! I did not mean to say there should be a feat making wizards as good as fighters. I agree it is a terrible idea. I was attempting to say that some things PrCs do can't be done through feats.
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
PJ-Mason said:Well i am a big Ogl/classless D&D fan, soo....
Now I've heard of appeals to authority, but this seems to be an appeal to lack of it then...
If you feel that way, feats give you leeway. If you are thinking something more exotic, that is the time to make your own variations (which is exactly what the DMG encourages you to do for your own world) or seek some out. But for it's job, it's a decent PrC (except I think the 3.5 tweak to their magic totally doesn't make sense, BID.) It has most of the competancies an assassin would need to have and likely develop.
PJ-Mason said:
False. If you can realize the concept with base classes and feats, you should not be using a prestige class for it. That's overkill. But feats are limited in the scope of what they can realize, and prestige classes have a bit of an inherent concept entrained in them that most feats don't.
Last edited:
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
I don't have anything in particular to say to the poster who opined that clerics shouldn't heal their fellow party members, because you'll have to wait a week or so for me to quit gut-laughing.
I have seen plenty of prestige classes that would be just as good - even much, much better - as a chain of feats. The exotic weapon master from Complete Warrior is a perfect example - there's honestly no reason for this to be a class, because it's all about pseudo-feat abilities. Ideally, the vast majority of a prestige class's abilities should be things that wouldn't be appropriate as feats - spellcasting, supernatural and extraordinary abilities, et cetera.
Hell, I've seen base classes that ought to be feat trees - Complete Warrior samurai, anyone? Tell me that shouldn't be a fighter with two-weapon fighting feats and a few intimidation-based feats.
I absolutely agree with those who say that they don't feel that all people who are called assassins should be members of the assassin prestige class - even within the confines of a gameworld Order of Assassins.
However, I think this is a strong argument against the concrete binding of prestige classes to gameworld organisations - instead, I encourage people to use them only when feats and/or careful multiclassing won't do the job. For example, I don't think the assassin's death attack ability should be turned into a feat - so for those characters whose modus operandi as an assassin involves a little magically-assisted stealth and infiltration and a devastating single attack that leaves their victim dead, the assassin prestige class is worthwhile. For entirely magical assassins - spellcasters using their magic to cover their tracks, for example - or others who don't use the "stealthy murder" approach, the class isn't necessary.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is this: don't believe every prestige class ought to be one, nor that everyone in the role the prestige class is intended for ought to be a member. Prestige classes are a tool for the DM to use in designing his world and for players to use in realising a character concept - but common sense has to be brought to bear on both sides.
My nickname is Irish Gaelic, but it means "son of the Goddess".
I have seen plenty of prestige classes that would be just as good - even much, much better - as a chain of feats. The exotic weapon master from Complete Warrior is a perfect example - there's honestly no reason for this to be a class, because it's all about pseudo-feat abilities. Ideally, the vast majority of a prestige class's abilities should be things that wouldn't be appropriate as feats - spellcasting, supernatural and extraordinary abilities, et cetera.
Hell, I've seen base classes that ought to be feat trees - Complete Warrior samurai, anyone? Tell me that shouldn't be a fighter with two-weapon fighting feats and a few intimidation-based feats.
I absolutely agree with those who say that they don't feel that all people who are called assassins should be members of the assassin prestige class - even within the confines of a gameworld Order of Assassins.
However, I think this is a strong argument against the concrete binding of prestige classes to gameworld organisations - instead, I encourage people to use them only when feats and/or careful multiclassing won't do the job. For example, I don't think the assassin's death attack ability should be turned into a feat - so for those characters whose modus operandi as an assassin involves a little magically-assisted stealth and infiltration and a devastating single attack that leaves their victim dead, the assassin prestige class is worthwhile. For entirely magical assassins - spellcasters using their magic to cover their tracks, for example - or others who don't use the "stealthy murder" approach, the class isn't necessary.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is this: don't believe every prestige class ought to be one, nor that everyone in the role the prestige class is intended for ought to be a member. Prestige classes are a tool for the DM to use in designing his world and for players to use in realising a character concept - but common sense has to be brought to bear on both sides.
My nickname is Irish Gaelic, but it means "son of the Goddess".
To adress the first post, the reason you hear more about PrCs are two fold:
1) There are 10 core classess, there are hundreds of PrCs.
On top of this everytime a new PrC comes out it is usually heavily debated.
2) Alot of PrCs are broken
And thushabitually return in rules arguements/ areas threads/ this is broken threads.
To add a personal note:
"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""
This means Joe gamer needs to learn a bit more about roleplaying.
If he wants to be a proud and noble night play a paladin. Agree with your DM before the campeign that you want to be more knightly and less holy warrior. Maybe play a paladin with no god (Similar to a cleric of no specific deity). Take the mounted combat feats, roleplay the character yourself.
Dont sit about whinging you cant do it unless someone writes a PrC for you, I was playing ninjas long before anyone wrote a PrC. I took straight rogue levels, and just roleplayed it. Wearing pyjamas, using shurikens and ryukens (short swords), and oriental look to him.
Alot of PrCs are thought up by powergamers in their wet dreams.
There are some good PrCs.
I thin the ones in the DMG are some of the better options which do actually add abilities not found in classes, but they are optional. Players should not turn up to a new game and expect to be allowed into PrCs unless the DM gives permission.
Just my 2c
Majere
1) There are 10 core classess, there are hundreds of PrCs.
On top of this everytime a new PrC comes out it is usually heavily debated.
2) Alot of PrCs are broken
And thushabitually return in rules arguements/ areas threads/ this is broken threads.
To add a personal note:
"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""
This means Joe gamer needs to learn a bit more about roleplaying.
If he wants to be a proud and noble night play a paladin. Agree with your DM before the campeign that you want to be more knightly and less holy warrior. Maybe play a paladin with no god (Similar to a cleric of no specific deity). Take the mounted combat feats, roleplay the character yourself.
Dont sit about whinging you cant do it unless someone writes a PrC for you, I was playing ninjas long before anyone wrote a PrC. I took straight rogue levels, and just roleplayed it. Wearing pyjamas, using shurikens and ryukens (short swords), and oriental look to him.
Alot of PrCs are thought up by powergamers in their wet dreams.
There are some good PrCs.
I thin the ones in the DMG are some of the better options which do actually add abilities not found in classes, but they are optional. Players should not turn up to a new game and expect to be allowed into PrCs unless the DM gives permission.
Just my 2c
Majere
Similar Threads
