Your thoughts on the power of prestige classes

[jmucchiello]

Yup, I was going to mention the "multiclass" loophole for Base Saves, but I dislike BAB and Base Skill Ranks just as much.

If you want to force a character to be a specific level, put up a big sign saying "YOU MUST BE MORE EXPERIENCED THAN THIS STICK --> | TO JOIN OUR CLUB" and have a raw XP requirement.

If you want to force a character to have a specific skill set, it's silly to ignore Feats, ability & racial bonuses, etc. -- IMHO, Base requirements are just as meta-game as XP, but they're dishonest and therefore icky.

What? Requirements for entry into PrCs are by definition a meta-game topic.

But I don't want to say "You must be character level 6" to enter the class. I want to say "You must have 8 ranks in Wilderness Lore" Since I chose wilderness lore, I don't want any 5th level wizards in the class. 5th level rangers, druids, barbarians are okay. But that cleric better dedicate 10 level of cross class penalty if he wants to enter. I don't care if he wisdom bonus is +100, I want those skill points from him. Why? Because some parts of the class are too powerful when combined with a cleric. I don't want you to do that at 5th level.

 

[tarchon]

Re: "Advanced Classes"

Is it d20 Modern which began the lingo of Basic Classes vs. Advanced Classes? I like that distinction better than Normal Class vs. Prestige Class.

Advanced Class merely has prerequisites to entry -- there's no connotation that it's inherently more prestigeous than other classes.

WFRP used the terms Basic and Advanced as far back as the late 80s, and Advanced classes in WFRP are explicitly designed to be and usually demonstrably are more powerful than their Basic counterparts. I don't think that the PrCs should go quite as far as the WFRP Advanced classes in the D&D model though, since the mechanics of that power advantage are different.
For a class that only has entry requirements and no clear sense of superiority, perhaps "restricted class" might be a better term.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would use the Arcane Archer as a good example of what not to do with PrCs. The raw combat abilities are roughly on the mark. So far so good. But the Arcane Archer gains both more skill points and more good class skills than either the fighter or the wizard. That is hopelessly stupid from a game balance POV. And I haven't even mentioned the saving throw progression yet...

Nope, don't agree. You must take a spellcasting class ergo must stunt your combat ability, and to really take advantage of one of your central class abilities, you need to take more class abilities. And they lack the flexibility of continuing progression as a fighter and are much more of a one-note. Arcane archer is, AFAIC, a well constructed prestige class.

You are incorrectly assuming that taking a single level (or three) of wizard is a foolish thing to do for a fighter. It is not if you bother to actually look for synergies. A single level of Wiz can gain you use of wands/scrolls of Expeditious Retreat, Shield, True Strike, Sleep, and/or Enlarge. You can still wear heavy armor, a buckler and bow held in the off hand, and use a Wand of Shield or a sword as needed.

There is no splitting of stats to speak of; you only need a 12 Int to make this work. Heck, most PCs I have ever seen have a 12+ Int because they want the skill points.

As far as being one note, I can only wonder what you think about barbarians, rangers, and paladins. They must depend on their one feat per three levels to improve their options. What are they? Zero note?

An Arcane Archer as written can easily be just as effective in melee as any Ranger. Where is this lack of flexibility? I don't see it.

 

[Desdichado]

Not more powerful pre se, but more capable across a fairly narrow focus I can see.

 

[Celebrim]

jmucchiello: But such are the dangers of trying to achieve balance by adjusting prerequisites, as I simply take a cleric with the Travel domain (or Plant or Animal) and I get around your 5 ranks of Wilderness Lore restriction quiet easily. Or I take a feat that lets me select a skill as a class skill. In general, I do so because the expenditure of a 'useless' feat is worth it since I know I'm going to gain so many more feats in return than I would have had I gone straight basic classes.

 

[Celebrim]

"To my mind, task specialization (along with adding flavor to your campaign world) are what PrCs are for. Those who insist that they should be strictly balanced with the base classes are kind of taking the prestige out of the prestige classes, IMHO."
-Avarice

But my point is that we don't need PrC's for either. Basic classes already may choose to become task specialists and in point of fact, many usually do. Rogues have too many class skills to be equally good at all, so most players opt to specialize in 'sneakiness', or 'social skills', or 'dungeneering'. Why do we need a new sneakier sneaky class, or a more social social class, or a more capable dungeneering class? Fighters may already opt to be close combat specialists, two handed fighting specialists, two weapon fighting specialists, archery speicalists, and all sorts of other sorts of specialists. Why should a fighter specialized in a combat task be inferior to some other guy specialized in a combat task? Aren't fighters combat specialists? Why shouldn't a fighter who devotes himself to killing humanoids one on one be as good as a Duelist, and more to the point, a Duelist _is not_ merely just better at killing humanoids one on one. Quite the contrary, the Duelist PrC seems designed to let lightly armored fighters with fineese weapons be just as good at killing dragons as any other fighter.

Do we need a PrC in order to have task specialization?

And as far as flavor goes, if I create 'The Secret Order of Saban Thugees' and detail the organization and its NPC's, is it any less flavorable that they are all derived from basic classes like Thief and Fighter instead of a 'Saban Thugee' prestige class? Isn't that the least of what determines good flavor?

Should we encourage the idea that somehow a fighter or wizard without a prestige class isn't somehow 'sweet enough' and needs new 'l33t skills' in order to be suitably 'sweet'? The whole phrase 'prestige' just screams the sort of player that roams around the Cons going 'my character is cooler than your character'.

 

[tarchon]

But my point is that we don't need PrC's for either.

We don't really need PrCs of course, just like we don't really need feats, skills, or sorcerers, magic items etc., but it can be a nice mechanic for introducing new abilities, if it's done right. Probably the most attractive thing about them is that they give players an advancement goal to work toward, particularly a themed goal. It feels like more of an accomplishment if you've been working on it for 5 levels. Could you do pretty much the same thing with multiclassing and feat chains? Sure, but it's just another way to do it.

 

[Mort]

An extremely limited form of "Sorcerer" abilities. A M0tAO can only call a limited number of spells per day from the spellpool (if I remember correctly, a total number of levels of spells equal to 1/3 to 1/2 of his spellcasting level). In other words, a 6th level caster (say Wizard 5/MotAO1) could call something like 1 1st and 1 2nd level spell from the spellpool. An 18th level caster could call a total of nine levels of spells from the spellpool per day. Plus it has to be repaid.

The spellpool is nice, but lots of people (like you) seriously overstate its power when they talk about the MotAO and Guild Wizard of Waterdeep classes.

I think you have it backward. This class is actually better for sorcerers than wizards. The spellpool eliminates the sorcerer’s main disadvantage. Yes it’s limited and yes you have to pay it back; but really, the main disadvantage of a sorcerer is being caught with your pants down when a very specific spell would do (most sorcerers don’t spare room for knock, for example). The spellpool prestige classes eliminate this problem.
This is my problem with many of the prestige classes. They take hard choices and make them easy (arcane trickster anyone?)

 

[GuardianLurker]

I vote for more "attractive"; in some cases this will mean the PrC is more appealing to someone in a role-playing sense, regardless of its power. In others, a new rules concept might be the attraction. And, of course, there should always be a place in the system for the power-gamer options (whether that's an option in the individual GM's game is another point).

But ultimately, PrCs are there to offer a "next level" in the game, something to offer a character a certain cachet. There's a difference between "I'm a d**n good archer" and "I'm an Initiate of the Bow" - the latter implies a set of attitudes (and skills and abilities too) that the former doesn't. You could reduce PrCs to a feat-n-skill recipe, and there's certainly a place for that concept as well. But it isn't the same.

As for PrCs being "juvenile", I suppose they are. But then, many consider indulging in "power fantasies" to be juvenile too. Personally, I just enjoy playing the game, and I try not to let my pretensions interfere with my (or anyone else's) fun.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Prestige classes in my mind are a goal. A Secret Order, a better combatant, or wiser cleric, or smarter wizard.

If they are about the same power as everything else then they are not a goal. Prestige classes are ways of rewarding character growth without having to add things to normal classes. I really think that interpreting the class into a role playing situation helps balance. If a character has to face the challenges of Gnatlor in order to join the Archers of Arcana and he makes it than he has to pay tribute every month to this temple or spend a couple months in training. Great Role playing opportunities.

If Prestige classes are just flavor and no power... then why are they called Prestige?