Your thoughts on the power of prestige classes

[Celebrim]

Wulf: I DM maybe 90% of the time. But, I probably wouldn't consider playing a PrC either except for a one off dungeon crawl where power gaming was the only consideration. I think people like PrC's for the same reason that they like +5 vorpal swords, and I think that the arguments here are basically similar to disagreeing over whether introducing a +5 vorpal sword to the campaign is a good idea. Even most 'PC types' will eventually balk at too much power being offered them; DM's just tend to balk at it sooner.

"Would the "feat chain" proponents recommend deconstructing the paladin and monk into variants of the fighter class that can be just as easily defined with "feat chains"? Same for the druid, bard, sorcerer, etc."

I wouldn't necessarily recommend that, but I could see the point of where that is going. I think there is something to be said for a class based system, but I think that the more classes you get the more cumbersome and fragile the system begins to become.

The same is true of a skill based system too. After a certain point, the introduction of additional skills are hurting the system not helping it (see GURPS). You want your initial skill set to be sufficiently broad that it covers most anything you would want to do.

I think that the 6 basic classes of D20 modern are an excellent example of how to structure a class based system. I'm less thrilled about the advanced classes, for much the same reasons that I'm less than thrilled about PrC's.

One of the big advantages of moving down to few more broadly defined classes (or no classes), and class powers defined as feat chains, is that I think that with care you could get past the hurdle of front ended classes. Alot of the basic classes carry huge advantages at first level (or to a lesser extent to up to third level). This happens because people expect even the lowest member of this class to have certain basic attributes. If you made class powers more feat like, you could load a person up at character level 1 and allow them to acquire that array of powers, but then taking a first level in any given class wouldn't load anyone with any extra powers acquired.

The big disadvantage of dropping classes entirely is game balance becomes just as hard as it would be with hundreds of classes. By making advancement somewhat predictible, its just easier to keep track of what people are going to have. The same logic would be used to restrict customizing a space fighter in a sci-fi sim game. You don't necessarily want to make everything tradable for everything. The same logic is involved with introducing a new card to MtG. You have to ask how this card is going to interact with every other card in existance. If you limit the rules for 'making the deck', then you can introduce cards far more freely because you can predict what 'the deck' will look like.

GURPS and WoD are excellent examples of completely open systems that work great if everyone plays by the unwritten rule of making deep characters with diverse skills, but if you just pour all of your points into doing one thing very very well, you break the system in a hurry.

So, no its not like I think one system is just perfect, but I don't think 'advanced classes' of any sort really help the game.

 

[WizarDru]

The same is true of a skill based system too. After a certain point, the introduction of additional skills are hurting the system not helping it (see GURPS). You want your initial skill set to be sufficiently broad that it covers most anything you would want to do.

I think that the 6 basic classes of D20 modern are an excellent example of how to structure a class based system. I'm less thrilled about the advanced classes, for much the same reasons that I'm less than thrilled about PrC's.

[snip]

GURPS and WoD are excellent examples of completely open systems that work great if everyone plays by the unwritten rule of making deep characters with diverse skills, but if you just pour all of your points into doing one thing very very well, you break the system in a hurry.

So, no its not like I think one system is just perfect, but I don't think 'advanced classes' of any sort really help the game.

I can accept that. It's one of the best reasoned arguments I've seen in this regard. Recognizing that both system have their faults is important. Having run GURPS games for since 1985, I can attest to the issue that the system can be made to bleed fairly easily, without suitable GM involvement and limitations.

I would argue that GURPS has a slightly different situation in that not all skills, advantages and so forth are applicable to all genres, so the clutter is not as bad as it first appears. That said, it gets pretty bad, pretty quickly.

I guess the real problem is one that GURPS illustrates, to me. Advantages have different values based on the campaign setting. Literacy is a classic example of sliding point value advantage. The same can be said for many skills that are highly useful in one setting, and useless or not as important in another. My fear is that feat chains would fall into the same trap.

For the record Wulf, I DM. Up until recently, almost exclusively, until Argent volunteered to run an occasional game to let me periodically recharge my batteries.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

Well, I try to have my requirements make sense for the PrC. So, usually, I'm not trying to keep a particular class out because of abilities it has. I'm keeping it out because it has the wrong flavor for the PrC. Suppose the PrC is fey related. Wilderness Lore is a perfect skill to base the requirements on. If a cleric takes a domain related to Fey or someone gets a feat to make WL a class skill, then that character is probably in tune for the PrC.

I guess I gave the wrong impression. I don't advocate requirements dictating balance with other classes. I advocate requirements dictating the style of character taking the class at the minimum level.

Joe

 

[Oni]

I fail to see why that is a problem. In fact, it is part of what makes a well designed prestige class work. If I say you need to be "fighter level 5" or whatever, then I am placing a very fine point on what members of the class will look like AND I am limiting the adaptability of the class to other d20 games that may not use that class. Further, by requiring an usual set of skill rank prerequisite, I can allow a character who is willing to go through a convoluted path get it earlier than a character who does not have to make such a big sacrifice but wait until later to get an equivalent benefit. These are good things AFAIAC.

Allow me to elaborate a bit. I believe that character level is a good prereq for PrC's. Some abilities are too powerful to receive at first level, but not too powerful to receive later on. I don't believe that PrC's should be more powerful than the base classes, but I don't think they should be like starting over either, a 10 level PrC should run the range of about 5th-15th level in powerlevel. Higher if it required a higher character level to achieve. PrC's are really an alternate path of advancement for a character, and so a character level prereq actually allows for more freedom in getting the class rather than having to follow one convoluted set path to achieving the PrC. I don't believe that a big set of prereqs that may or may not make sense or that is in place just to require a certain entry level is a good balancing tool. I don't think trying to balance a PrC by requiring less useful feats to qualify is a good practice. Just because one ability is sub-optimal doesn't make the more powerful ability any less usefull. I liken it to taking a wizards spelllist and saying that lightning bolt is second level and fireball is 4th level and calling it balanced. By only using prereqs that make sense you promote flavor rather than killing it by trying to maintain balance, and if you were to allow character level as a prereq then it automatically gives you a sense of scale as to how powerful a PrC should be.


I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well, but I hope I'm making at least some sense.

 

[Bastoche]

Allow me to elaborate a bit. I believe that character level is a good prereq for PrC's. Some abilities are too powerful to receive at first level, but not too powerful to receive later on. I don't believe that PrC's should be more powerful than the base classes, but I don't think they should be like starting over either, a 10 level PrC should run the range of about 5th-15th level in powerlevel. Higher if it required a higher character level to achieve. PrC's are really an alternate path of advancement for a character, and so a character level prereq actually allows for more freedom in getting the class rather than having to follow one convoluted set path to achieving the PrC. I don't believe that a big set of prereqs that may or may not make sense or that is in place just to require a certain entry level is a good balancing tool. I don't think trying to balance a PrC by requiring less useful feats to qualify is a good practice. Just because one ability is sub-optimal doesn't make the more powerful ability any less usefull. I liken it to taking a wizards spelllist and saying that lightning bolt is second level and fireball is 4th level and calling it balanced. By only using prereqs that make sense you promote flavor rather than killing it by trying to maintain balance, and if you were to allow character level as a prereq then it automatically gives you a sense of scale as to how powerful a PrC should be.


I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well, but I hope I'm making at least some sense.

At the very least I agree with your opinion of what a PrC should be... I guess

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Since you asked, Wulf, I'm 90% DM. My comments are on record above.

When I see PrC's that list "Bonus Feat" at every level I choke, spit, and throw things ... at least until I read the fine print.

 

[Psion]

I don't believe that a big set of prereqs that may or may not make sense or that is in place just to require a certain entry level is a good balancing tool.

Well it should obviously make sense, but provided that, I think the technique you are deriding is valid.

I don't think trying to balance a PrC by requiring less useful feats to qualify is a good practice. Just because one ability is sub-optimal doesn't make the more powerful ability any less usefull. I liken it to taking a wizards spelllist and saying that lightning bolt is second level and fireball is 4th level and calling it balanced.

I do not see those situations as equivalent. You spell example gives the character spell that should be 3rd (or depending on who you talk to, 4th) level a level early. That is not the same as granting the character a strong class but one which is not game-breaking for the level.

 

[jmucchiello]

By only using prereqs that make sense you promote flavor rather than killing it by trying to maintain balance, and if you were to allow character level as a prereq then it automatically gives you a sense of scale as to how powerful a PrC should be.

But ranks in a skill is almost exactly the same as minimum character level since nothing should grant ranks in a skill except skill points gained each level. (And if you know of a feat that grants ranks or that allows you to have extra ranks than character level +3, that feat is broken.)

I do agree with what you said about what PrCs are.

Joe

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But ranks in a skill is almost exactly the same as minimum character level since nothing should grant ranks in a skill except skill points gained each level. (And if you know of a feat that grants ranks or that allows you to have extra ranks than character level +3, that feat is broken.)

It's "Defend that Opinion" time, Joe.

I have exactly such a feat in DWARVES and I have been waiting to hear a new take on this argument-- because believe me, we went around on this in playtest.

In fixing the woefully underpowered Skill Focus, I presented three options:

+3 bonus to one skill;
+2 bonus to two skills;
+2 ranks in one skill.

This wasn't something done cavalierly or by accident; every single playtester commented on it.

But other than being an inconvenience to PrC balancing mechanisms, I'd like to see an example of how this is broken. A real example, not a hypothetical "Well it potentially throws my PrC out of balance."

My opinion on the matter is really very simple: Two ranks in one skill, as a feat, is perfectly acceptable. A character who trades a valuable feat for two ranks in a skill, and is thereby able to qualify for a too-narrowly defined PrC, deserves to benefit thusly.

There are no real earth shattering implications.

At least, that's my opinion.


Wulf

 

[jmucchiello]

It's "Defend that Opinion" time, Joe.

{Rolls up sleeves}

In fixing the woefully underpowered Skill Focus, I presented three options:

+3 bonus to one skill;
+2 bonus to two skills;
+2 ranks in one skill.

And this may be the crux of the argument. I don't think Skill Focus needs to be fixed. I think Alterness is an aberration that should be fixed (+1 to Spot and Listen). Now, granted at this stage in the d20 universe, that swarm of cats is out of the bag of holding. And even in my own book, I created a feat template to handle the "Paired SKill Focus" bug-a-boo and provided 20+ examples.

If I could sneak into WotC headquarters and change something in the PHB file that was sent to the printers in 1999, it would be the Alertness feat. But since I apparently do not attain time travel ability in the future and thus have not fixed it yet, I accept that Skill Focus should be +3 bonus to one skill. But, now I complaing that Spell Penetration, Spell Focus, Ability Focus, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, etc, etc all of the +2 to something feats should also be +3 to something. (See below for my own solution in Joe's Book of Enchantments.)

Now, what about ranks? As written, I have no problem with "+2 ranks in one skill". Does this +2 ranks in a skill violate the maximum # of ranks in a skill per character level? By your further comments, I'm guessing it does.

This wasn't something done cavalierly or by accident; every single playtester commented on it.

How? For or against it?

But other than being an inconvenience to PrC balancing mechanisms, I'd like to see an example of how this is broken. A real example, not a hypothetical "Well it potentially throws my PrC out of balance."

Well, I don't see how you cavalierly throw out PrC balance. I mean, I'd probably bump the rank requirements of most of my PrCs up 1 or 2 if a feat could affect ranks.

As written, it by-passes the class/cross-class skill deliniation. Cross-class skill points are different than class skill points. But, ranks are ranks. Now my fighter can take Skill Focus (Bluff) and spend 4 skill points at first level to get 4 ranks in Bluff at first level. At 3rd level, he can get the synergy bonus from having 5 ranks in Bluff. That throws off all intra-class skill balance. Can you imagine a 3rd level fighter with Bluff feinting to throw away one critter's Dex bonus then increasing his Power Attack since it has less defense. Now throw in Cleave. Give up an attack one round to drop an opponent the next round because you can max out your Power Attack.

Skill synergies are tied to ranks in a skill. They are also balanced based on character level. Tumble grants those defense bonuses earlier with bonus ranks. Bluff grants synergy bonuses to four skills. It's supposed to be available 2nd level characters, this puts it in reach of first level character Rogues, Monks, Bards, etc.

My opinion on the matter is really very simple: Two ranks in one skill, as a feat, is perfectly acceptable. A character who trades a valuable feat for two ranks in a skill, and is thereby able to qualify for a too-narrowly defined PrC, deserves to benefit thusly.

And I'd agree if it didn't raise the maximum number of ranks allowed per character level. But I don't think the level-up mechanisms should interact. Would you also allow someone to buy a feat by giving up their base skill points that level (they still get their Int Mod skill points)? Afterall, a feat (Skill Focus) is worth just 3 skill points. If not, how about, must give up all skill points that level?

There are no real earth shattering implications.

This may be true, but I like my fix for Skill Focus better: Skill Focus grants +2 bonus to a skill and makes the skill a class skill. How broken is that?

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
http://www.throwingdice.com