Why Prestige Classes?

[reanjr]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. But Heir of Siberys is one of the few, the proud, the prestige class that actually isn't absolutely useless except as a way to min/max. But there are so few of them. I just wish someone with sense (Monte Cook, Sean Reynolds, or some community schmuck with a good eye for role-playing) would go through every published prestige class and find the 19 in 20 that should be removed from collective conscious (and print).

 

[reanjr]

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.

Well, I apologize for not being a power gamer. I think character abilities should be role-played. And I have to laugh at people who think divine magic granted by deities is a simple tool to be used at whim. They have no concept of role-playing a pious individual and should not be allowed to play clerics. 2e BTW, pretty much agreed with me. In 2e it was suggested that DMs pick the spells the cleric memorizes because the god is the one that grants them. The cleric can make a request, but the god doesn't have to do it. In addition, spell failure chances were there to simulate the god disagreeing with the particular casting of the spell.

THAT is how a cleric should be played. Not as a buff-machine who can replace bed rest so the rest of the party can kick more ass and take more loot.

 

[fanboy2000]

Yummm, food for thought

Ah....no. Feats are a wonderful resource that can handle ALL of the specializing abilities found in PrCs. Yes, each class should receive more feats, especially as they reach the higher levels.

If I'm going to subscribe to that philosophy, then I'm going to want to take it futher than just PrCs.

I'll explain.

The reason most PrC class abilities aren't feats is because class abilities, more often than not, are more powerful than feats. Consider, many class abilities are supernatural abilities, (the Church Inquisitor's Learn the Truth ability springs to mind) and feats are generaly extradordanary abilities. Also, Versatile Telekinesis (from Master of the Unseen Hand, CW pg 60) is an example of a class ability that I would not want as a feat, under the current class system.

If I'm going to make class abilities feats, then it makes sence to make all class abilities feats. At that point, the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana are the best starting point. Uther wise, you end up with PCs that only take the most powerful feats, (the ones that were previously class abilities) at ever oportunity. And that just makes the problem worse, not better.

I do agree that feats should be more common at higher levels, particulary when class features are scarce for the class.

PrCs are a faulty mechanic because they handle BaB, saves, and spell use. If you are a rogue and want to specilize in a roguish area, then there is no reason to receive a fighter BaB or gain an extra +2 to your save etc.

If the PrC is specializing a rogue ability, then it shouldn't have full BaB, a good fort save, etc . . .

I'm sure there are PrCs that do that, but they shouldn't. If, however the rogue wants to specialize in a figher ability that is not available to the figher class, then it makes sence to multiclass into the PrC advance in BaB quicker and gain a fort save.

The trick is to design PrCs for your home game (or chose them from published material) that justify any changes to BaB, HD, and saves thay may have.

A PrC should be no more than a set of abilities that would replace the more general class abilities and it should be a sacrifice. You should miss those other class abilities, even though you have cool abilties to replace them.

I don't like this idea. Unfortunitly I don't like it for any reason I can articulate, it's just a matter of taste.

Otherwise, you have munchy mechanics freaks which turns the game into a set of numbers rather than a roleplaying game.

I'm confidant that I'm right when I say you'd have that problem under 3e regardless of how PrCs were handled.

Honestly, I NEVER heard people tell me to switch to gurps etc in the older editions of DnD because it had a good balance of roleplay and combat.

These days, when I lament the lack of roleplaying, I am told to switch to a different game because DnD does not DO roleplaying.

That's nuts.

That is nuts. D&D handles roleplaying just fine.

Ok, I'm going to digress here because I think we've hit on a big part of why PrCs are still a contiversial game mechanic.

D&D is a game about overcomeing challanges. In order to write rules about overcoming chalanges, chalanges have to be quanified. In D&D, something is a challenge if it uses 20% of a party's resources. Challenges are broken up into smaller taskes that are over come by the d20 roll, roll 1d20+Modifiers and compair it to a targen number, the dificulty class.

D&D only needs 3 knids of rules: rules for modifiers, rules for assigning dificulty classes, and rules for designing chalanges. Advice should also be given for tieing chalenges together to make a choherant game.

Diffrent people roleplay diffrently. Diffrent groups roleplay diffrently. There are a lot of groups that, even though thay use the same rules I do, I wouln't want to play with them because of roleplaying diffrences.

If D&D included roleplaying rules, then fewer people would buy it because it would have rules for roleplaying in ways they don't want to roleplay.

When someone says D&D dosen't support roleplaying, what they mean is that is dosen't penelize people for roleplaying in ways they don't like.

What people don't like about PrCs is that they don't support the kind of roleplaying they like. The Assasin PrC is a good example, by it's very name, it sugest rules for playing an assasin. As though assasin is a game mechanic rather than a roleplaying desision.

Of course, some base classes are like that. How many people have argued that the Bard, Paladin, Ranger, or Druid classes should be PrCs or made from feats chosesn for one of the base classes?

I like PrCs, when used right they can add a lot of flavor to a world. PrCs can also help players that better fit the concept they have in mind.

 

[fanboy2000]

I just wish someone with sense (Monte Cook, Sean Reynolds, or some community schmuck with a good eye for role-playing) would go through every published prestige class and find the 19 in 20 that should be removed from collective conscious (and print).

Well, I think the number is a little higher than 5%, I'd go for such a thing too.

 

[Henry]

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.... 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.

I don't know if that's the best example I would give: The Heir of Siberys, being only a 3-level PrC, really does nothing more than give you a powerful dragonmark and give you more times per day to use it; it's real requisite is mainly that you are 12th level when you get it.

Having a Siberys mark feat with the same requisites as entry into the PrC really wouldn't change the flavor that much; the level of distraction is still there, and doesn't complicate things by requiring the player add a PrC to his sheet.

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.

In my opinion this is the best way to go, and probably what EVERY DM should be doing (but then, that's just one man's opinion). There's not room in most campaigns for EVERY PrC under the sun - but I like the fact that a choice is there. There are so many PrC's available, that I'd NEVER have to do another lick of design work for my games again! If I have three knightly orders, a wizard's Society, and a thieves' guild to fill, all I have to do is pick them, rename them, maybe tweak them for 5 minutes, and presto! But to just throw PrC's out there willy-nilly is a disservice if both players and DM's have worked hard to build a consistent campaign setting.

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.

To me, the Eldritch Knight and the Mystic Theurge are two examples of what a "generic" PrC SHOULD do. There are certain "gamist" (mechanical concepts) that really shouldn't be as weak as they are, and the split-level caster is one of them. A Cleric/Wizard is certainly a valid concept, and one seen in fiction quite frequently; but in-game, the 20th level cleric/wizard 10/10 split is going to get his butt creamed in utility by every other party member. He shouldn't have 20/20 casting ability, mind you, but 13th/13th or even 15th/15th wouldn't be unbalancing.

 

[Faraer]

Here's another reason I don't like prestige classes. D&D represents things twice: on the level of abilities and class levels, and the level of BAB and skill modifiers and saving throws. This is inelegant and could easily be called 'bad game design' (that term which certain d20 designers and advocates like applying to any different game design philosophy). But it allows the game to be class-based; and I like the normal archetypal classes and the kind of play they make, but I don't like the prestige classes which lessen those archetypes.

And obviously, each new prestige class risks being over- or underpowered, and can never receive the playtesting the core classes get, which is in turn far more reliable than any DM's eyeballing of the class on paper. Which is a weakness in a ruleset obsessed with 'game balance'.

 

[Capellan]

Different people take PrCs for different reasons. Different people also game in different ways. This is why in some groups, PrCs are loathed, and in some they are loved.

It's probably about time we all got over that fact

Even within a group, there are different reasons for taking a PrC. In our group, people have taken them because:

- the abilities were cool (yes, it happens, I'm over it )
- the visuals created by the concept were cool ("a mage who carries a flaming shield? sounds neat!")
- the core classes didn't do what was wanted (a druid with strongly fey-oriented powers)
- it tied to the character concept really well (concept was an adventuring scholar ... player found the adventuring scholar PrC several months after play began. rejoicing ensued)
- it tied to the plot of the campaign (we're about to fight a holy war? war priest it is!)
- they gave cool RP opportunities (we took the assassin, filed off the serial numbers, and made it a non-good - rather than explicitly evil - religious order dedicated to the god of death. they kill for faith, not gold. It's a fun concept to play with)

There are probably more, but you get the idea

 

[DragonLancer]

To me, the Eldritch Knight and the Mystic Theurge are two examples of what a "generic" PrC SHOULD do.

Ah, now these are two prestige classes that I don't like from a balance issue.
When a character multiclasses they gain the benefits of a second class but lose the benefits of a level of their base class (assuming a single class gaining a second). Thats the game balance. If you want to get new skills or abilities, you give up on your former skills. The two PrC's mentioned above (plus Cerebremancer from the XPH) do away with that game balance by allowing the pregression of both classes rolled into one.
I've heard comments on that unbalance from various people. Even my resident twink player took one look at those classes and decried them as unbalanced for the reasons I stated above. Yet others disagree with that idea saying that some classes (spellcasters mainly) loose too much by multiclassing.

- it tied to the plot of the campaign (we're about to fight a holy war? war priest it is!)

In my mind thats the real reason for taking a PrC, though I can understand the need and desire to take such a class to improve class abilities.

 

[Ranger REG]

Different people take PrCs for different reasons. Different people also game in different ways. This is why in some groups, PrCs are loathed, and in some they are loved.

It's probably about time we all got over that fact

Unfortunately, they won't.

A lot of those who loathes them feel it is a waste of ink and pages and therefore they don't get their money's worth purchasing the rulebook. They hope to change it either for the own personal benefit or what they believe is the best interest of the entire D&D community.

IOW, their motto is the opposite of WotC: Rules, not tools. Restrictions, not options.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Unfortunately, they won't.

A lot of those who loathes them feel it is a waste of ink and pages and therefore they don't get their money's worth purchasing the rulebook. They hope to change it either for the own personal benefit or what they believe is the best interest of the entire D&D community.

IOW, their motto is the opposite of WotC: Rules, not tools. Restrictions, not options.

That's some nice psychoanalysis.

WotC wouldn't get that much ire if they would stop publishing unclear or broken package deals - and try working with feats and other flexible tools insteads.