Your thoughts on the power of prestige classes

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yep! It is hardest to balance the sorcerer, then the wizard (since they at least have bonus feats you can trade out), then the cleric (turn undead, domains), and then the druid.

It can be done, but unfortunately it takes different tactics for different classes.

A sorceror PrC can lose gaining new spells or spell slots.

A cleric can lose access to a domain.

A wizard can lose access to schools of magic, or spell slots.

A druid, as you already said, already can lost a lot.


I am convinced it was a mistake for any of the core classes to have a bse of 2 skill points per levels. Most PrC should have fewer skill points and class skills than comparable core classes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm very disappointed with the implementation of prestige classes, frankly.

I think that the way they function best is as organisations which give benefits and have entry requirements. I think that they should give benefits over a straight class, and that entry to them should always have a role-playing element (travel to x and persuade y of your dedication and worthiness for the cause). I really dislike the "prestige class as power-up" mentality which I sometimes see in their design.

Unfortunately, even the DMG prestige classes seem to fall a little short of the high ideals that Monte originally lays out for them.

The class books, even the DMG would have benefited vastly from explaining how to create prestige classes for prestige organisations within a campaign world, rather than churning out lots of "one size fits none" classes in the splatbooks.

< /rant >

I love the idea of prestige classes, and there are several that I happily use in my campaign. The *next* campaign that I run will still have prestige classes but almost *all* entry restrictions will be removed and replaced with role-play entry restrictions. i.e. you won't have to have a certain BAB or set of feats - but you will have to complete a series of challenges (which will be well-nigh impossible for a starting character).

After all, why should someone with 10 Con and the Endurance feat get in when someone with 18 or 20 Con couldn't? Why should someone with 8 Dex and 10 ranks in Hide (overall +9) get in when someone with 18 Dex and 6 ranks (overall +10) not? I understand why it is done in terms of restricting entry to characters of a particular level, but I chafe at the meta-game restriction this imposes.

oops! < /rant > again!

Sorry if this seems a little ranty, but I hope you may see some method in my madness.

Cheers

 

[Olive]

it really depends... PrCs can be more powerful, especially if they require steep requirements, with feats skills etc that you wouldn't otherwise take. plus i think that RP reqs are god too (and i know i'm in the minority on this)... if your DM says no, or says yes but you have to blah blah blah, then thats all good by me... but that doesn't mean they HAVE to be... plus if they are more powerful, iuts good if they're more specialised too... so a cavalier is more powerful in mounted combat, but less so otherwise

so i said other.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

IMO a PrC should encapsulate a character concept (stereotype, if you like).

The requirements for entry should all be related to that stereotype. As such they should be things that any sensible person aiming at becoming that stereotype would at least have contemplated taking anyway. Therefore I personally view any PrC which has "punitive" requirements as being badly written from the beginning.

In short; a PrC with a good concept, executed well, should NOT be using pre-reqs as a cost to entry. They should form part of the logical flow of creating the character to grow into the concept the PrC defines.

It flows from that underlying philosophy that while I believe that the power of a PrC should be different to that of a core class, it should not be simply stronger than any core class. Ergo; any PrC which can be summed up as "like an X, but with Y as well" is overpowered. Good PrCs IMO, can be summed up either as "like an X, but with Y instead of Z" or "Like a mix of X and Y, dropping P from X and Q from Z".

Most of the well-written fighter type PrCs are like this; they come accross as fighters that have pushed all their bonus feats into a certain path, including (in some cases) abilities that aren't on the normal feat list...

I agree with Wulf, I think; PrCs should NOT have setting details in them. They are rules, and I want to be able to use them in MY setting as easily as possible, without needing to shove a specific organisation into it.

I also dislike race-specific PrCs - what is so "elven" about imbuing arrows with magic?

 

[Li Shenron]

I like Prestige Classes when they propose something new , both from RP point of view and new abilities or specific powerful focuses.
What I like much less are PrCl that pretend to be a good choice while they effectively simply merge two base classes, both in concept and abilities: there is a very good Multiclassing system to do this, and a PrClass that simply makes you half cleric and half warrior is not needed at all (unless you're simply looking for a way to skip multiclassing penalties).
Unfortunately there are some of the WotC PrCls that have really few new abilities (although sometimes disguised under new names).

I like balanced PrCls, although I don't necessarily complain if a PrCl which can be taken only at high levels is effectively more powerful than normal (but Book of Vile Darkness prestige classes go really too far ).

I like PrCls with lots of requirements. I appreciate when there are also RP requirements, if that is in line with the PrCl concept, but also I think it's important to have "numbers" as requirements. After all, what is really in common among ALL the members of a PrCl? The 1st level abilities and all the required abilities! ALL Loremasters cast at least 3rd level spells, know a lot of divinations, and have good Knowledge scores. A bad example is Contemplative: all comtemplatives have only 1 thing in common, 10 ranks in Knowledge(Religion), which basically EVERY Cleric has aften 7th level.
And yes, punitive requirements with nothing to do with the concept are really a low point against the designer (why should all Blackguards be usually sundering?)
I also appreciate race/gender requirements; it lets you feel proud you're an Elf if Elves only teach their own kind about the secrets of Arcane Archery.

One more comment:

After all, why should someone with 10 Con and the Endurance feat get in when someone with 18 or 20 Con couldn't? Why should someone with 8 Dex and 10 ranks in Hide (overall +9) get in when someone with 18 Dex and 6 ranks (overall +10) not? I understand why it is done in terms of restricting entry to characters of a particular level, but I chafe at the meta-game restriction this imposes.

Although I agree with you that the Assassin guild has little chance to know if your +10 in Hide comes exactly from high ranks or high Dex (well... characters don't really know that they have "ranks" or "abilities scores" after all... they simply notice the consequences, that is the average result of their own checks), the requirement is put in RANKS not only to set a minimum level, but also because ranks never go down (except when you're level drained, but you should lose the last levels you have gained). Instead, you Dex can go up/down for several reasons, permanently or temporarily. What if you are always wearing an amulet that gives you +10 Dex, and have 5 ranks in Hide; do you think you are the same as having 10 ranks? It's definitely a playability issue.

 

[mkletch]

There's no point to a PrC that is worse than a normal class. Thus, the reason a player takes the PrC is that he perceives the abilities that it grants are better (cooler, whatever) than the abilities of the straight class character. Thus by definition that player is going to feel that the PrC is more powerful (better, cooler) than the straight class. I don't understand people who are against "powerful" PrCs. By definition people play one class over an other because they believe its abilities are better (cooler, more in line with their personality) than the other classes' abilities.

Flavor must be backed by substance. You don't squeeze ketchup straight into your mouth because it tastes good on a hamburger. You can create a PrC with amazing flavor for some monks on a mountain top who can copy a book in two days no matter the length (at 10th level). But if no player plays it, and no villain has it, it may as well not exist from the player's point of view.

The tightrope walked by PrC writers is to make the class seem more powerful with actually making it more powerful. Some designers fail at this. Don't buy their books. But it is not a power vs flavor argument. From your poll, there cannot be a PrC which is balanced but has generic flavor. I don't buy that.

Well, that about says it all...

The only thing I can contribute is that level 1 in a PrC is level 3, or 9 or 15 for the character. So the power of a particular PrC depends on what character level you see a character taking level 1 in your PrC. That being said, few PrCs are equivalent to each other, and none are equivalant to levels 1-10 in a core class.

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

I agree with Wulf, I think; PrCs should NOT have setting details in them. They are rules, and I want to be able to use them in MY setting as easily as possible, without needing to shove a specific organisation into it.

And I disagree with that. It is obvious from postings and articles by Monte Cook that the original intent was that PrC = organization. WotC destroyed this all on their own, so there is nobody to 'blame'. What we have (in official books) is a combination of organizations and 'stand-alone' characters.

I as a DM am leaning more toward organizations and away from stand-alones, to flesh out my world and put some meaning into the organizations that do exist. Why bother with the strictures and structures of an organization if you can just go off and Tempest all by your little lonesome? If the players want their characters to simply wander all over the world doing good deeds or whatever, then that is what core classes are for, and their are enough of these to make things happen. That 'career path' does not really allow you to specialize or discover previously hidden knowledge. My Fighter 6/ Diviner 1/ Arcane Archer 11/ Order of the Bow Initiate 4 does not make a lot of sense as the 'wandering guy' adventurer that he was/is, but could have made more sense if part of an organization that gave/taught him all of his wacky PrC abilities.

All that said, I have considered adding a tome or two to my new campaign that would let a PC learn a 'long forgotten' PrC as levels were gained. That would be a way around the organization bit, though not as 'loose' as some players would like. But the whole idea is flavor not DM-control (though I as a DM do try to enforce the 'flavor' of a campaign via the rules).

-Fletch!

 

[Thanee]

Voted the first, but there is one comment I want to make about it.

I have no problems, when the PrC is more powerful (i.e. take a look at the Arcane Trickster progression, which is clearly more powerful, than the Wizard's), if the prerequisites to get there balance this in a way (i.e. in the AT's case, the lower caster level compared to a single class Wizard is the big balancing factor).

Therefore I judge the power of a PrC including the prerequisites (which are, of course, part of the class, so this is just natural)!

Just wanted to point that out, that classes, which have a more powerful progression do not necessarily have to be more powerful overall!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Endur]

I agree that the prestige classes have been implemented poorly. Several of the original DMG prestige classes made sense for organizations. In particular, the Arcane Archer, the Dwarven Defender, and the Assassin all made a lot of sense.

The Loremaster, Shadow Dancer, and Blackguard didn't seem as tied to organizations, but were more there as balance.

The prestige classes in the builder books and other sources, however, really seem different from the original concept.

Tom

I'm very disappointed with the implementation of prestige classes, frankly.

I think that the way they function best is as organisations which give benefits and have entry requirements. I think that they should give benefits over a straight class, and that entry to them should always have a role-playing element (travel to x and persuade y of your dedication and worthiness for the cause). I really dislike the "prestige class as power-up" mentality which I sometimes see in their design.

Unfortunately, even the DMG prestige classes seem to fall a little short of the high ideals that Monte originally lays out for them.

The class books, even the DMG would have benefited vastly from explaining how to create prestige classes for prestige organisations within a campaign world, rather than churning out lots of "one size fits none" classes in the splatbooks.

< /rant >

I love the idea of prestige classes, and there are several that I happily use in my campaign. The *next* campaign that I run will still have prestige classes but almost *all* entry restrictions will be removed and replaced with role-play entry restrictions. i.e. you won't have to have a certain BAB or set of feats - but you will have to complete a series of challenges (which will be well-nigh impossible for a starting character).

After all, why should someone with 10 Con and the Endurance feat get in when someone with 18 or 20 Con couldn't? Why should someone with 8 Dex and 10 ranks in Hide (overall +9) get in when someone with 18 Dex and 6 ranks (overall +10) not? I understand why it is done in terms of restricting entry to characters of a particular level, but I chafe at the meta-game restriction this imposes.

oops! < /rant > again!

Sorry if this seems a little ranty, but I hope you may see some method in my madness.

Cheers

 

[Bastoche]

I see three ways to the PrC.

1st: a prestige class should be slightly more powerful than a straight class if the requirements makes the first levels in the straight class sucky. For example, requiring a warrior-like PrC to gain social skills and non-combat feat, like diplomacy, bluff and skill focus, endurance or leadership

2nd: a highly specialized class should be better than a straight class in it's area of expertise, but worse in other fields. Like the order of the bow initiate. Will be good with bow, but the lack of bonus fighter feat will necessarly make it a worse melee fighter (especially with the pre. req.)

3rd: a "simply flavor" class should be as powerful as a standard class. Like the duelist IMO for example. The precise strike ability make it more or less on equal footing with a str oriented fighter. The lack or versatility makes it balanced IMO.

I consider these three point to fall in the "balanced with other class" category.