Would it break the game if..no PrC requirements?

[Emirikol]

I was just checking out the major prestige classes and wondered if another minimalist house rule might make things interesting. I'm most interested in character levels 2-12, as that's what I expect for most of my upcoming campaign lengths. It's kind of a pseudo-gestalt approach:

"No minimum requirements for prestige classes." So, pretend PC's would take this at 2nd character level and assess from there.

I did a brief assessment, but wanted some input. Here are my thoughts on the majors:
Arcane Archer: Probably much less specialized before gaining the class would lower it's power
Arcane Trickster: +1 level of spellcasting...
Archmage: Self-balancing..as high arcana requires 7th+ level slots
Assassin: You give up a lot of lower-level rogue stuff, but otherwise equal to a rogue
Blackguard- starts spells early
Dragon Disciple-breath weapon would be powerful, but at lower hit points..good luck with that hand-to hand attack!
Duelist-you give up more than you would gain (necessary for lower level char's)
Dwarven Defender - somewhat stronger than a barbarian at lower levels..but without the back up feat's and HP's, it seems somewhat balanced
Eldritch Knight - more hp's, more spells, d6 hp. Definately would unbalance.
Hierophant - Im imagining a low-level Heirophant in training. The "special bonuses" are laughable at lower levels. Definately would weaken a character, but add some specialization potential.
Horizon Walker - balance
Loremaster - more potent spells + special
Mystic Theurge - More potent x2
Shadowdancer - Ability to jump around, but would be weak if started too early
Thaumaturgist - Weaker b/c spell level minimum 6th (planar ally)

Any thoughts or major problems and solutions?

jh

 

[Hawken]

I don't see any harm in removing the BAB, skill and feat requirements, but special or intrinsic requirements should remain. Such as with the Mystic Theurge, which would have to be taken at 3rd instead of 2nd, so the player could have one level of divine caster and one of arcane caster.

 

[CleverNickName]

I was just checking out the major prestige classes and wondered if another minimalist house rule might make things interesting.

Part of the fun for the prestige classes, at least for me anyway, is building a character to meet the qualifications. But that is a personal preference, not a game balance issue. From a logistical point of view I don't think it would break the game, but it might cause power balance issues when low-level characters gain high-level abilities (Eldritch Knight, Dragon Disciple, etc.)

If that becomes a problem, you could always give all prestige classes the same, single requirement: a character must be at least 6th (7th? 10th?) level before choosing a prestige class.

Another problem that might come up is "cherry-picking." Many prestige classes offer a handful of good abilities at 1st level as a reward for meeting the requirements (such as Canny Defense for the Duelist.) If a player didn't have to worry about meeting those requirements, they might be tempted to take the first level of every prestige class in the game...maybe two levels at the most. Every thief in the game would be a rogue/ duelist/ assassin/ monk/ shadowdancer...

This may or may not be a problem, depending on how you run your game. (It would drive me absolutely crazy, but again, that's a personal preference.) If it ever becomes a problem, you could impose an XP penalty for multiple prestige classes, or just outlaw it altogether and say that a character can only have one prestige class.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I've always thought that PrCs would be a great NPC class for mooks that you want to be interesting/challenging, but not more than one hit wonders as mooks should be. Take a spell sword, full BAB plus casting. A mob of these guys 3-5 levels below your PCs would be tough and tactically interesting, but ultimately deflatable.

 

[Syltorian]

Why not have a look at the 'official houserules' of UA, especially the Test Based Prerequisites? The Metagame Analysis part is but a two small paragraphs, but might help you out here.

 

[the Jester]

Why not have a look at the 'official houserules' of UA, especially the Test Based Prerequisites? The Metagame Analysis part is but a two small paragraphs, but might help you out here.

Ahh, someone beat me to it. I've been strongly considering switching all my prcs to roleplaying and test-based prereqs and handling the 'minimum level' aspect on a metagame level. I have been using this kind of system in my low-magic game, and so far it has worked out pretty well- there have been several possibilities for prestige classes (paladin, war wizard, outcast ranger, keeper of the cerulean sign), though nobody has actually taken one yet. I suspect, though, that making entry roleplaying-based will make my game 'better' (by which I guess I mean 'more to my taste').

 

[Spatzimaus]

It really varies with the PrC. Basically, PrCs seem to use two different methods to maintain balance (although some combine the two methods):

1> Big prerequisites, giving an effective up-front cost (in skill ranks and/or Feats) to offset the fact that the PrC is substantially stronger than the class it replaces.
Example: Loremaster. You have to buy 20 ranks of Knowledge skill, but you get 2 extra skill points per level to offset. You have to buy Skill Focus, but you later on get a Bonus Feat to offset.

2> Very few entrance requirements, but ongoing costs that offset whatever bonuses the class gives.
Example: Horizon Walker. You get two fewer skill points per level than a Ranger, but at each level you get a +2 bonus to a specific skill. You don't advance your Favored Enemy, but you get a similar terrain bonus against certain enemies.

So, if you were to flat-out remove the requirements, you'd be giving a huge boost to PrCs in category #1. They'd effectively get all their usual bonuses, but without any of the costs used to balance.
(Personally, I'm a big fan of method #2, and so all PrCs we use IMC are redesigned along those lines.)

 

[Piratecat]

Why not have a look at the 'official houserules' of UA, especially the Test Based Prerequisites? The Metagame Analysis part is but a two small paragraphs, but might help you out here.

I use these. I vastly prefer them to the standard rules.

 

[GreatLemur]

I use these. I vastly prefer them to the standard rules.

Yeah, to be honest, that options seems a better fit for what I always assumed to be the central idea of the prestige class mechanic: The character gains new and rare skills because he or she has joined an organization--or achieved some other uncommon status--which makes such skills available.

 

[Emirikol]

Why not have a look at the 'official houserules' of UA, especially the Test Based Prerequisites? The Metagame Analysis part is but a two small paragraphs, but might help you out here.

Thanks for the tip on that guys. I'd forgotten about the UA stuff.

There are definately two categories of PrC's as one poster puts it. It's the Category 1 PrC's that would possibly do damage to the game. Those I may leave as is...however with my house rules requiring "magic classes" to multiclass with non-magic classes, it may well balance out. Some more analysis on this is definately required. We used to only require the "roleplaying" plus "level minimum equivalent" but people in my groups don't take PrC's much anyways.

jh

..