# The Worst Prestige Class Awards



## Al (Apr 20, 2002)

Well, I've seen a few threads concerning what the most powerful/original/exciting/fun prestige classes in the whole game are, but I don't think that this has been done.

Ideally, it could have been a poll, but there are too many.  Perhaps if a few keep coming up here, we can run a poll based on the findings.

Here's three to start...note that they do not have to be necessarily the least powerful, but can be simply unoriginal, utterly drab, ridiculous, inapplicable to most campaigns or even utterly overpowered.

LEAST USEFUL: The Candle Caster (T&B).  Yes, he can make magic candles, but is anyone ever going to take this prestige class?  You can engineer a scenario especially to put this in, but it's never going to be the first choice for...well...anything.

LEAST ORIGINAL: The Master of the Shrouds (DotF).  Highlights of the prestige class are: Summon Undead I, Summon Undead II, Summon Undead III and Summon Undead IV.  Oh, and Extra Turning.  And that's it...hardly inspiring.

MOST UNDERPOWERED: The 'True' Necromancer (T&B).  The prerequisites take a weak prestige class and make it useless! When you've taken your first level of true necromancer, your single-classed friends are pumping out Harm or Circle of Death, you're stuck with Vampiric Touch.  In fact, your colleagues are casting Wish, Time Stop and Miracle before you can even muster Finger of Death.  You never get 9th level spells, half the point of spellcasters, except your 'ultimate' power: Energy Drain.  Which your single-classed buddies got three levels earlier.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2002)

I think the cavalier would be a contender for least original PrC. Class abilities at 1st level: ride +1, attack +1. Class abilities at 5th level: ride +3, attack +3. Class abilities at 10th level: ride +5, attack +5. They clearly racked their brains thinking up the powerups for that one.

Worst-named class ability: Warmaster, for "Die for your country". The first time I saw it, I was thinking "cool, this guy can die for his country 3 times per day!" Then I looked a bit more closely and it was actually the ability to make _other_ people die for their country. Oh well. Honorable mention: Gladiator, for "The crowd goes wild". I don't think I can add anything to that.

Most notorious stuffup: Halfling outrider. Who can forget the hoo-ha over leaving out the BAB progression? Honorable mention goes to the ninja of the crescent moon (pre-errata), aka "superman".

Worst flavour text: Shiba protector (OA), One with All and Nothing -- "A Shiba protector of 10th level has recognized the deep truth that all her ability scores spring from the same essence. In a moment of perfect clarity, ..." Honorable mention: Order of the bow initiate.

I seem to notice a preponderance of S&F PrCs here. Hmmm.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 20, 2002)

Least Useful: I've yet to see a PrCl that is really not that useful.  Each has their place, no matter my person opinion on it.  

Least original: Weapon Master, its so generic.  To think you can havea single class that is speicialized in any one melee weapon is absurd.  

Most Underpowered: Mystic, it was a good idea but in practice it just does not live up to the level of power of the other classes.


----------



## RogueJK (Apr 20, 2002)

:Note:: This one can be seen as a problem on the part of the base class, or the prestige class, depending on how you look at it.  I'd say that it's a fault in the base class, since the PrCs were published first.)

Biggest Oversight:  The fact that both of the Ninja PrCs (Ninja of the Crescent Moon and Ninja Spy) require the Evasion class ability, which the Ninja class doesn't get.

They're trying to tell me that a Rogue or Monk can become a better Ninja than a true Ninja? 

IMO, most of the prestige classes that people consider "useless" (such as the Hexer, Candle Caster, Watch Detective, and Dread Pirate, to name a few) are meant more for NPCs.  They might be useless to a player, but each has its own place.


----------



## gfunk (Apr 20, 2002)

I'd say the Dragon Disciple (version 3.0 -- after the Sage flip-flopped twice) kind of sucks.  Giving up ten spellcasting levels for a clerical BAB and a half-dragon template seems pretty weak.


----------



## Omegium (Apr 20, 2002)

Least original: Hospitaler.
The idea might be nice, but the execution is worthless. Overpowered (All good points from a fighter, from a cleric and a couple of things from a pally), There is NO reason not to become this as a cleric, and except when you thing a d10 is more improtant than 10 spellcaster lvls, not for a fighter either. The prequisits are bad, some ride things, and worst of all: NO HEAL. A hospitaler without heal, yeah, right. The class is boring, doesn't get a single ability another class can't get. So, that's the rant for today.

Least powerful: Dwarven defender. His best ability is the defensive stand, and everyone who is right in his mind will do a 5 foot stap backwards when it is used, and use ranged weapons of spells. And since the DD can't walk, he can't do anything about it.
Also the true necromancer, the dragon disiple, the diplomancer, and quite some of the S&S classes (pirate boy for example, how often are you on ships?) are quite weak.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> Least original: Weapon Master, its so generic.  To think you can havea single class that is speicialized in any one melee weapon is absurd.
> *




Along the same lines is the foe hunter from MotW. The idea of a class specialising in hunting down a hated foe is good, but using one class to handle every possible hated foe is not. That's especially so, when you consider how many "hunter" type PrCs have already been published:

- hunter of the dead (undead)
- sacred exorcist (ghosts)
- knight of the chalice (demons)
- ancestral avenger (Dragon, drow)
- phantom hunter (Magic of Rokugan, spirits)
- witch hunter (OA, evil spellcasters)

I'm sure there was one specialising in hunting mind flayers as well, in one of the Dragon issues.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Apr 20, 2002)

Omegium said:
			
		

> *Least powerful: Dwarven defender. His best ability is the defensive stand, and everyone who is right in his mind will do a 5 foot stap backwards when it is used, and use ranged weapons of spells. And since the DD can't walk, he can't do anything about it.
> Also the true necromancer, the dragon disiple, the diplomancer, and quite some of the S&S classes (pirate boy for example, how often are you on ships?) are quite weak. *




This only works if the enemies know the DD is a DD and know about the defensive stand... if they don't, thy'll likely just stay in melee.  Don't forget that the class also has d12 HD, fighter BAB, uncanny dodge, the best DR in the game, and AC bonuses.


----------



## Killer Shrike (Apr 20, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *Well, I've seen a few threads concerning what the most powerful/original/exciting/fun prestige classes in the whole game are, but I don't think that this has been done.
> 
> Ideally, it could have been a poll, but there are too many.  Perhaps if a few keep coming up here, we can run a poll based on the findings.
> 
> ...




I agree with you otherwise, but the Candle Caster is a powerful class. They essentially get a partially limited metamagic feat almost every level and spellcasting every level. Not as useful for an actively adventuring PC due to item creation overhead, but very powerful for an occasional adventurer or even a cohort. Also, using the Candle Caster as a model, it is possible to adapt the pClass to other outlets than Candles, just changing references to Candles to whatever  item type you are swapping out.


----------



## Al (Apr 20, 2002)

I never said that the Candle Caster wasn't a powerful prestige class.  What I would say, though, it that it is very limited in scope: I don't believe nearly any PC whom would take it, and I (as a perenniel DM) would be unable to put it into a campaign without specifically going out of my way to engineer the scenario.  It just seems too obscure.


----------



## FANGO (Apr 21, 2002)

I'd have to put in a vote for wayfarer guide...of course, I suppose it could be an okay NPC, but really quite a strange/useless prc.  And on another note, I really was disappointed with the prcs in song and silence...not very good, and also there aren't very many of them.  Pretty icky.  Blighter also goes up there as one of the odd prcs...having to destroy tons of forests every day in order to spellcast isn't too fun.

And as for the defender...those things are buff!  Note that the damage reduction (in the DMG, I dunno about any errata or anything) isn't real damage reduction, and actually does reduce ALL damage by 6 (or 3...) points, regardless of what source it comes from or how magical it is.  Damn.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Apr 21, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> LEAST USEFUL: The Candle Caster (T&B).  Yes, he can make magic candles, but is anyone ever going to take this prestige class?  You can engineer a scenario especially to put this in, but it's never going to be the first choice for...well...anything.
> 
> *





Candle Caster is the only PrC I've seen taken in game.      The player had already desided long before T&B came out that her Gnomish Wizard ran a candle making shop in off time and candle caster was just perfect.       And that freinds is what PrCs are supposed to be, flavor, not "Kewl power of the week"


----------



## Derulbaskul (Apr 21, 2002)

I admit that I am profoundly disappointed with the execution of the prestige class concept in the overwhelming majority of products.

IMO, in most cases, a prestige class seems to be a waste of space (at best): the designers would have better off specifying a feat chain for an existing class or multiclass combination. The cavalier is a good example, as is the foe hunter: the former is simply a mounted combat-focussed fighter, maybe with a few Aristocrat levels thrown in, the latter is a ranger/rogue multiclass with a few specific feats.

I like the majority of the FR prestige classes because they actually seem to fit into the campaign setting for which they were written.

STRICTLY IMO!!!

Anyway, my votes for the worst WotC prestige classes from the class books are:

- DotF: all PrCs are seemingly beyond redemption.
- MotW: except for the silly names (Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle), most of these actually have some utility. Then again, let's toss out Watch Detective as a bit of a shocker and I'm sure that I could find a few more.
- S&F: all except duelist (then again, this book should never have been printed).
- S&S: all except Fang of Lolth which, while of limited utility, is at least an example of something that can't be achieved using the a combination of multiclassing and feat chains.
- T&B: wow, this book actually has some value!  Then again, Dragon Disciple (if only it were workable...), Elemental Savant (vain attempt at an elementalist), Fatespinner, Pale Master, True Necromancer and the, "Why wasn't this simply a feat?", Wayfarer Guide.

Cheers
NPP


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2002)

Derulbaskul said:
			
		

> *- MotW: except for the silly names (Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle),
> *




Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Apr 21, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm sure there was one specialising in hunting mind flayers as well, in one of the Dragon issues. *




That's the Slayer, from the Psionics Handbook.

In Dragon, there has also been the 
Fiend Slayer(fiends),
Arcanopath Monk(spellcasters),
Psi-Hunter(psionic creatures),
Giant Killer(giants).

There are plenty of 'I hate X' prestige classes.

Geoff.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2002)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> *
> (mind flayer hunter PrC)
> That's the Slayer, from the Psionics Handbook.
> *




A great opportunity was lost in not calling it the mind slayer, IMO.


----------



## Archer (Apr 21, 2002)

Is this limited to just WoTC classes because if you think those were bad, wait till you hear these from Librum Equis:

Tainted Warlock 
Lose 7 caster level progression and gain one permanent negative level to add +2d8 to single target spells on failed save (unless it is disintegrate or slay living as specifically mentioned in the text as having damage added on either a successful or failed save, lets see that's DEATH+2d8 on a failed save.)  I'm serious, that's what the whole 10 levels does. D4 hp and wizard's BAB if you were wondering. Lets compare 10 levels of this class to 10 levels of commoner. The commoner has better HP, BAB, fort, ref, more skills and an additional choice of feat. The warlock has better caster progression, better will save, 17 bonus spells (3 6th, 8 5th, 6 4th) and +2d8 damage (enhanced lace from BoEM) to single target spells and the unholy lace ability from BoEM. Who comes out on top? Its practically a tie.

Two Fisted Sorcerer of T'arg 
Lose 4 caster levels for 3 rounds of haste (only for casting 2 spells in a round however) per day. Hmmm, why don't I just learn haste as a 3rd level spell and skip this whole class. Surprisingly enough, that's the only class ability. but wait you also have to take 3 weak feats (amb, imp unarmed strike, still spell) and 12 skill ranks to take this class.

I don't see how any prestige class could top these two. I think there is one more worth mentioning through.

Zombie Master (5 levels)
Command twice as many undead. This is a whole prestige class?  Pale Master, Master of Shrouds and True Necromancer are 10x the PrC that this is so before you complain about those you should know how bad it can get. BTW, this is a feat in some other book, Undead, I think.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Apr 21, 2002)

Archer said:
			
		

> *Is this limited to just WoTC classes because if you think those were bad, wait till you hear these from Librum Equis:
> *




Yep, crunchy bits have gone too far.

The OGL (and the whole d20 movement) is great, but maybe a company should a learner's permit before they're allowed to drive. Then again, that's the function of the market....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Derulbaskul 
- MotW: except for the silly names (Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle), 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

unquote

Maybe I will start up a Hackmaster campaign with that as the working title....

Cheers
NPP


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 21, 2002)

Archer said:
			
		

> *Is this limited to just WoTC classes because if you think those were bad, wait till you hear these from Librum Equis:
> *




Aw, man, did the Ambient guys come and pee in your breakfast cereal again?



> *
> Tainted Warlock
> Lose 7 caster level progression and gain one permanent negative level to add +2d8 to single target spells on failed save (unless it is disintegrate or slay living as specifically mentioned in the text as having damage added on either a successful or failed save, lets see that's DEATH+2d8 on a failed save.)  I'm serious, that's what the whole 10 levels does.
> *




First of all, while you gain only 3 caster levels over the course of the class, you *also* gain 17 'bonus spells', which I note you failed to mention.  So you're not raising your maximum spell level much but you are still getting fairly large incresaes to the number of spells you can cast per day. (More, in fact, than a wizard at some levels.)  And don't forget the +2 DC to saves if your target is Good.



> *
> Two Fisted Sorcerer of T'arg
> Lose 4 caster levels for 3 rounds of haste (only for casting 2 spells in a round however) per day. Hmmm, why don't I just learn haste as a 3rd level spell and skip this whole class. Surprisingly enough, that's the only class ability.
> *




I can see you read carefully.  1) They get a medium BAB. 2) They basically get the 'twin spell' metamagic feat for free, 3 times per day, without increasing the level that the spell is at.  It's not super-powerful, no, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be.



> *
> I don't see how any prestige class could top these two. I think there is one more worth mentioning through.
> 
> Zombie Master (5 levels)
> Command twice as many undead. This is a whole prestige class?  Pale Master, Master of Shrouds and True Necromancer are 10x the PrC that this is so before you complain about those you should know how bad it can get. BTW, this is a feat in some other book, Undead, I think. *




Command extra undead, the ability to bolster your undead against turning (at 3x your Zombie Master level), the ability to reanimate slain undead, the ability to make zombies with 50% more hit dice and a +4 strength, ability to spontaneously cast _animate dead_.  Oh, plus good Fort saves and full spellcaster progression.  Is there any reason not to take this if you're a necromancer?

Archer, you obviously have a grudge against the guys who wrote LE.  Let it go.  Lying about what's in the book just makes you look petty.

J


----------



## Madfox (Apr 21, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> Archer, you obviously have a grudge against the guys who wrote LE.  Let it go.  Lying about what's in the book just makes you look petty.
> *




To me it seems many posters have some sort of a grudge against all publishers for their Prestige classes  I know of many players and DMs who like the prestige classes named in this thread. It is all a mater of taste. Of course, approaching PrC from a roleplaying point of view as opposed of a way to get some neat powers helps in this regard. The only prestige classes I have real trouble with are those that are very unclear on what exactly it gets, the Dragon Disciple being a prime example.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 21, 2002)

Madfox said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To me it seems many posters have some sort of a grudge against all publishers for their Prestige classes  I know of many players and DMs who like the prestige classes named in this thread. It is all a mater of taste. Of course, approaching PrC from a roleplaying point of view as opposed of a way to get some neat powers helps in this regard. The only prestige classes I have real trouble with are those that are very unclear on what exactly it gets, the Dragon Disciple being a prime example. *




Even the classes I mentioned I've seen used in game.  I think Prestige classes are a good thing.  They just need to be used the right way.


----------



## Shirt Guy John (Apr 21, 2002)

The only PrC I've seen playd is the Duelist, and that worked out well... very well.

I would personally rather see a few more feats in each of the splat books thatn the PrC's (Divine Feats come to mind...)

I did Like a few in MotW... as NPC classes (Frenzied Berserker, Foe Hunter, Bloodhound)

I agree that the thing that most commonly ruins PrCs is a lack of description or specification.

Still, some are pretty cool, when used right.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 21, 2002)

Unfortunatly they are most often used to sell the book in which they appear to the power hungy player who yearns to be free of the balance of the core books. 

After all how many smack downs use the core rules compared to the splat books?

The worst parts of the PRCs is that they waste so much space that can be used for feat chains.


----------



## mzsylver (Apr 21, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> - ancestral avenger (Dragon, drow)
> *




where is this prestige class printed? can you describe it?


----------



## 7thlvlDM (Apr 21, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *LEAST ORIGINAL: The Master of the Shrouds (DotF).  Highlights of the prestige class are: Summon Undead I, Summon Undead II, Summon Undead III and Summon Undead IV.  Oh, and Extra Turning.  And that's it...hardly inspiring.
> *




I have to disagree that the Master of the Shrouds is the least original.  I think if you use the rules in its side bar as is, i.e., the Master of Shrouds can summon vampires at first level, but if his foes are defeated before the summoning duration ends the summon undead turns on him, you have a pretty cool mechanic: a prestige class with a weapon to destroy most any foe, but also runs the risk of killing himself if he uses it.

I think any wizard prestige class that only gives + previous class caster level ever other level (e.g., Mirror Master from the Book of Eldritch Might) is relatively weak.  I know someone thought this was a good idea, but if that character ever wishes to return to the wizard class, he's lost up to 5 levels in spell progression.  Those PrC bonuses better be damned good to offset the lost progression.

-7th


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 21, 2002)

Anyone have any comments about the prestige classes from Asgard magazine?

Blind Assassin:  In hindsight, I've learned this was based on something from Buffy or Angel, but still, it's kinda cool.  Warriors are blinded but trained to have precognition in combat.

High Sorcerer:  Gains greater magic powers, at the expense of taking damage while casting spells.  Effectively, they become the physical embodiment of magic.

Feyspeaker: This class becomes restricted in the type of spells it can cast (evocations and necromancy are usually a no-no, but illusions and enchantments are great), and in exchange slowly adopts traits of various fey creatures.  Also, they can lead circle dances, where several people can participate in casting a spell through dance.  Though these spells take longer to cast, the Feyspeaker gains many options when applying them.  At 10th level, she gains my favorite power, which allows her to lure and trap unwitting attackers in the fey realm.  In effect, it's kinda like power word, kill, but isn't much cooler just knowing that your foe is going to dance himself to death over the next fifty years?  

Stiltling:  A halfling and gnome fighter class where the warrior runs around on two spears, staves, or polearms, using them as stilts to gain a height and reach advantage.

Ley Line Magus:  Almost the magical equivalent of the Dwarven Defender.  They bind a nearby stream of magical energy to the point that they're standing at, and as long as they don't move, they gain bonuses to their spell power, can scry down the length of the line, and eventually just cast spells purely from ley energy, without having to use their own spell slots.  Great for a mage who wants to lay in siege.

Adventuring Scholar:  A class from Privateer Press that is based on Indiana Jones.

Nevae Wanderer: From Thunderhead Games, I sadly can't recall much of this class.  I believe they just had a great variety of bonuses based on their wanderings.

Taranesti Sword-Dancer:  A dark Elven take on the Bladesinger.  Instead of using both magic and swordplay, the Sword-Dancer makes the two disciplines one.  A slash of a blade might change in mid-swing to become the somatic component of a spell, and skilled Sword-Dancers can parry spells as easily as they deflect swordblows.

Undead Hunter:  A hunter who is undead, as opposed to one who hunts undead.

Crescent Island Spellsinger:  The sea is always speaking, whispering in the lap of tides, or roaring through the crash of stormwaves.  A song-based class, the spellsinger befriends the song of the ocean, which will always accompany her, acting as a second voice.  This voice protects from sonic attacks, grants mild bardic abilities, and can eventually cast its own spells.  A high-level spellsinger can master a whole choral symphony of seasong, casting as many as three spells per round, though this taxes her greatly.


----------



## Archer (Apr 21, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First of all, while you gain only 3 caster levels over the course of the class, you *also* gain 17 'bonus spells', which I note you failed to mention. So you're not raising your maximum spell level much but you are still getting fairly large incresaes to the number of spells you can cast per day. (More, in fact, than a wizard at some levels.) And don't forget the +2 DC to saves if your target is Good.
> 
> ...




... and I can see that you can't.

I clearly mentioned the bonus spells, you just managed to not quote them. The +2 DC to saves if your target is good = the unholy lace comment. I'm sorry if it wasn't more clear to you.

The two handed sorceror is exactly as bad as I make it out to be. It doesn't say you get the effect of the twin spell, it says you can cast "two copies of the same spell at the same time in one combat round as a full round action" and that at 10th level you can apply it to 3rd level spells instead of just 1st and 2nd and use it 3x/day. Even if you did get the twin spell feat applied to your 3rd level spell twice, you will get wasted by the 8th level spell cast against you plus they can throw in a quickened magic missile and cast another 8th level spell using haste. The difference between woefully underpowered and ridiculously underpowered is not a distincition I care to make.

Furthermore, I had separated the zombie master out as not the worst character class ever made but rather to compare it to other handlings of undead specialists that other people thought were poor. I'll admit is better than 10% as good, it could be considered as much as 75% as good (referring to quality of design). I feel the master of shrouds is more original than the zombie master. It has plusses if you are a wizard, notably the fort save and the one step up for hd but there are probably better choices. It is definitely worse if you are a cleric.

Spontaneous casting of animate dead isn't a great ability because the range is touch. You going to run around the battlefield touching corpses to revive them with your pouch full of onyx?

You are always better off using bigger zombies than empowering smaller zombies because of reach and better damage dice.

Bolster undead makes a few of your weaker undead harder to turn. Say you have 30 zombies and you bolster 15 of them. When the good cleric turns, the 15 unbolstered zombies turn to dust which is pretty much exactly what would have happened had you not wasted a round bolstering when you should have been casting an attack spell or running away.
---
On another note, the reason there aren't more feats in the splatbooks is because there is a realistic limit on how many different feats you can have. More feats are either too powerful, too weak or redundant after about the first 250.


----------



## 7thlvlDM (Apr 21, 2002)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *Anyone have any comments about the prestige classes from Asgard magazine?
> *




I haven't thoroughly looked through them RangerWickett, but my first impression was that they were quite original and well done.

I think prestige classes should be

1) Exciting.  Let's put the prestige back in prestige classes.  Cool new mechanics and awesome powers do this.  The Arcane Archer and Shadow Dancer are pretty exciting IMO.

2) Balanced.  I think it's ok for prestige classes to have abilities well above those of core classes, so long as they have weaknesses and penalties that counterbalance them.  We shouldn't forget about the prerequisites when determining balance.  If you have to acquire 3 weak feats, that could instead be cleave, great cleave, and power attack, that's a sacrifice.  The Archmage is a pretty balance class IMO.


----------



## Archer (Apr 21, 2002)

Yes, a good prestige class should make someone excited but then thoughful about what they are giving up but then back to being excited about the new possiblilities that are being opened to them.

I'm not a big fan of forcing someone to take a bunch of crappy feats to take a prestige class. Skill ranks are better. They force enough of a commitment that you probably won't take just 1 level but they don't waste the precious commodity that are feats. It also restricts low int characters from taking the prestige class. If you must force someone to take a feat, make sure that the feat is actually important to the prestige class or that the class takes the feat a step further ie. great cleave -> supreme cleave.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 22, 2002)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *Anyone have any comments about the prestige classes from Asgard magazine?
> 
> Blind Assassin:  In hindsight, I've learned this was based on something from Buffy or Angel, but still, it's kinda cool.  Warriors are blinded but trained to have precognition in combat.*




That's been around a lot longer than Buffy & Angel. I remember it from the G.I. Joe cartoon, and it wasn't new then either.  (Heck, it was in Star Wars now that I think about it.)

J


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 22, 2002)

*Why do i try?*

I always love that attitude the associates some type of bohemian eliticism with only playing with core rules. As if to say that the type of extreme variation that can only come about with any rules fidelity from some expansion material must be the mark of the 'powergamer' or the even more laughable 'munchkin.' The stigma attached to these terms of course get inflammatory posters noticed and serves to place those of different views on the defensive, as if they are the ones that have to prove balance or lack thereof. 

And to those that who would claim that most(if not all) prc concepts could be accomplished with feat chains, i will say you obviously have a vague understanding at best as to the underlying game theory of D&D. Yes, feats are more flexible, but like the looser skill system to which they owe their heritage, that comes at the expense of balance for feats, and even worse feat chains, tend to compliment each other without associated costs in 'fixed' attributes such as BaB, AC, HP, etc. That is why dnd still has classes and why prcs are a good idea. You couldn't get the type of variation or specialization you have in prcs with feats without leaving room for extreme balance problems, for those abilites would not be tied to poor feat prereqs, lower hit die, etc. Even the so-called 'bland' prcs in S&S have a place because, though you could carve out a similar niche with feats, you could not do so to the degree you can with prcs....


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2002)

There are a select few Prestige classes that can be done with feat chains.  However, most can't.  Feats are gained every third level.  Few prestige classes gain powers only everythird level.  Also, many of the powers vary in strength depending on everything else the class gives.  Feats aren't like that.  THey all aren't made equal, but the only think that balances it out is prerequites.  Many powers from prestige classes would be "broken" because they could be combined with powers from other prestige classes if they were all feats.


----------



## hong (Apr 22, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> That's been around a lot longer than Buffy & Angel. I remember it from the G.I. Joe cartoon, and it wasn't new then either.  (Heck, it was in Star Wars now that I think about it.)
> *




The blind warrior who fights better than sighted people (because he isn't distracted by the superficial) is quite an old archetype in Asian martial arts folklore.

That would be quite the nifty prestige class to design, actually.


----------



## MulhorandSage (Apr 22, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's been around a lot longer than Buffy & Angel. I remember it from the G.I. Joe cartoon, and it wasn't new then either.  (Heck, it was in Star Wars now that I think about it.)
> 
> J *




If you like the concept of the blind swordsman, do yourself a favor and track down the 1964 movie _Zato Ichi Abaredako_ (Zatoichi's Flashing Sword). It's the first in a series and it's incredibly cool. One of the best "gamer" movies I've ever seen.

Scott Bennie


----------



## Ulrick (Apr 22, 2002)

*Prestige Classes---BLAH!*

I've decided that most prestige classes out there aren't that great at all.  No, I'm not looking for an uber-prestige class.  Yet it seems like that what you give up for a prestige class, in most instances, isn't worth what you get for a prestige class.

Ulrick


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Prestige Classes---BLAH!*



			
				Ulrick said:
			
		

> *I've decided that most prestige classes out there aren't that great at all.  No, I'm not looking for an uber-prestige class.  Yet it seems like that what you give up for a prestige class, in most instances, isn't worth what you get for a prestige class.
> 
> Ulrick *




Actually, I've been amazed on how they balance out.  But prestige classes give you something that a core class just can not: Concept.  Core classes are general, prestige classes are specific.


----------



## KDLadage (Apr 22, 2002)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *Anyone have any comments about the prestige classes from Asgard magazine?
> 
> Blind Assassin
> 
> ...




Am I invisible? Was not my class the *YEOMAN* in Asgard as well? 

Jeesh...


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Apr 22, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The blind warrior who fights better than sighted people (because he isn't distracted by the superficial) is quite an old archetype in Asian martial arts folklore.
> 
> That would be quite the nifty prestige class to design, actually. *




The Blind Master- a 5 level prestige class

To be found in The Quintessential Monk, written by me, coming in August from Mongoose Publishing. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Apr 22, 2002)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Am I invisible? Was not my class the YEOMAN in Asgard as well?
> 
> ...




The Invisible Yeoman? Sign me up!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 22, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *Worst-named class ability: Warmaster, for "Die for your country". The first time I saw it, I was thinking "cool, this guy can die for his country 3 times per day!" Then I looked a bit more closely and it was actually the ability to make _other_ people die for their country. *




Yeah, I don't think that's quite what Patton meant when he said:



> The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Why do i try?*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *And to those that who would claim that most(if not all) prc concepts could be accomplished with feat chains, i will say you obviously have a vague understanding at best as to the underlying game theory of D&D. *




Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. The issue is not whether "all prestige classes could  be accomplished with feats" - clearly false - the issue is "it would be better to provide recipies for creating many character archetypes". In other words, to become a weaponmaster, perhaps one should go weapon focus, weapon spec, improved crit, <few other new related feats>. While to become a cavalier, then Ride skill, handle animal skill, Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge, Ride By Attack, Trample would be in order. An entire list of recipies for different kinds of rogue, wizard, cleric etc. etc could be created in order to help people develop characters in certain directions. Some guidance in class tweaking (a la PHB and DMG examples) would also have been in order, and could be included in these recipes.

Sure, Prestige classes have a (very useful) place - but too many prestige classes are created when in actual fact it would be better defined as a particular path.

Back before S&F was released, it was anticipated that this might form the backbone of the class books. C'est la vie 

Cheers


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 22, 2002)

*No, you missed it....*

Yes, it is easy to tailer pcs to a particular niche using 'recipes', but assuming a pc REALLY wants to excel at such a role, i.e. take it to the extreme, only the prc with it's bundled abilities can do so without risking balance.....


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Why do i try?*



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sure, Prestige classes have a (very useful) place - but too many prestige classes are created when in actual fact it would be better defined as a particular path.
> *




I totally agree. I think Prestige Classes became the "new kits" soon after the concept was revealed. Soon, it seemed there was a Prestige Class that did what could just as well be accomplished using feats and skills for every character concept. Prestige Classes are fun, don't get me wrong, but sometimes they're more work than is necessary. It could be people are still used to the 1e/2e era, when PC classes were comparatively bland and often needed kits to help differentiate one member of a class from another.


----------



## jollyninja (Apr 22, 2002)

i can't believe that nobody has given the award for worst nonsensical prerequisites: 

weaponmaster, does not need weapon specialisation, does need a bunch of multipurpose feats relating little with the concept of a weaponmaster, which lead to a bunch of abilities derived from the feats that made no sense before. how does limiting the abilities to a single weapon balance things out? typically, characters only carry a couple weapons around anyway with one being their trademark weapon.

tempest: requires alot of the same feats as weapon master, but has no abilities that could be derived from these feats. i consider it the ultimate feat chain PrC, the fact that it gets more class abilities (which should just have been feats) then a fighter does really irritates me. i thought the fighter was supposed to be the ultimate combat machine in the area he has chosen to specialise in. apparently i was wrong.

warmaster: needs weapon specialisation, why? prowess with a specific weapon has nothing to do with the class. or any of the derivative abilities


----------



## ThomasBJJ (Apr 23, 2002)

Masters of the Wild's FORSAKER. makes no sense. Shun magic, get magic powers, break magic items to get more magic powers, but you can't cary magic items with you, so you really will get no benefit from those powers. Oh, and by the way, we wont even begin to explain why all this works, it was just a neat package of trade offs.

 All my opinion, of course.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2002)

I didn't think tempest was so weird. The only extra required feats are the spring attack chain. Tempest is essentially exactly like 10 levels of fighter but it gets 2 feats unique to their class instead of 2 feats of choice that a fighter would have. The off-hand parry is just window dressing.

Forsaker makes sense but just has a few small implementation problems. The forsaker's powers aren't magic. By not relying on magic as a crutch, he awakens his full natural potential. He needs the powers for game balance anyway. What he needs but doesn't have is Detect Magic (ex) at 1st level and the destroying of magic items should be banked with a declining balance.

Weaponmaster: weird, I vote for it, the requirements run counter to the flavor text and class concept.

Warmaster: runnerup for stupid requirements, I guess that was their plan to make it fighter only.

Exotic Weapon Master: has rage just to limit it to barbarians so people wouldn't complain so freaking much about them not getting anything.

I'm amazed how some designers don't even think of problems that thousands of other people notice immediately. Sometimes a published class is just as messed up as the house rule PrC's people write for free. I remember the 25 versions of the bladesinger after TB came out and before the errated version. I think Monte Cook was so right about many designers not even playing the game and so have no concept of rules questions that occur to anyone who plays monthly. Sometimes classes are based around something totally useless like the ghostwalker or the zombie master, at least forsaker and tempest have clearly defined paths.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 23, 2002)

* *ConcreteBuddha flips through the various supplements he has purchased.* *

I racked my brain, trying to figure out the worst PrC. I flipped through all the class books and random other sources and I came to this conclusion:

* I hate PrCs. *

As a DM, PrCs are a pain. This is what happens to me:

Player #1: _ "I want to play a Fighter who grows up to be a Chibby Chub from the S&F!" _

Me: _ "Okay, but you are level 1. You have never seen a Chibby Chub. You have no idea what the requirements are to be a Chibby Chub. You do not have a clue how to become a Chibby Chub." _

Then I think to myself, _ "Dang, now I have to make up an organization, culture or guild that churns out Chibby Chubs. And at just the right moment, at around level 6 or 7, a high powered Chibby Chub has to find the PC and train him in the HIGH ART OF CHIBBY CHUBBING!" _

"High leveled NPCs are pretty rare. Exactly how many Chibby Chubs are there in the world? And wouldn't this PrC be better represented by feats? I mean why can't a Fighter take Improved Weapon Specialization (Whip) instead of being a Lasher?"

In gameplay, I always take the "allowing PCs access to prestige classes is purely optional" route." (pg. 27 DMG.) I feel like this is a copout, however, and I wish PrCs were a variant and had a huge title that said: * VARIANT: PRESTIGE CLASSES * .
.
.
.
As a player, PrCs are a pain. The DM generally has a specific storyline in mind and will not bow to the whim of "I want to be a Chibby Chub! Let me go find a someone to teach me chibby chubbing while all of you go on the adventure."

Also I find that PrCs go one of three routes:

* 1) Too specialized. * "Now I can kick *** whenever I'm in this specific swamp! Woo Hoo!"

* 2) Too powerful. * "Yay! Now I am better than Joe Blow Fighter who just gets crappy feats! Ha! Ha!"

* 3) Too weak. * "Neat! I just gave up 8 caster levels to be a Squirrel Disciple!"
.
.
.
In general, I find that PrCs are better represented by feats or hard-won special abilities. I would prefer to cater high-level, special, specific feats, spells or "knacks" to a character than a whole new class.

I think DnD should have feats with higher requirements that require more time and effort.  I am annoyed that every feat in the Core Books can be taken at level 12 or less (Forge Ring and Craft Staff are the highest). This lack of powerful feats at higher levels tells me that the game is designed with levels 1 though 12 in mind.

* *Concrete Buddha crosses his fingers and hopes that the Epic Level Handbook is good.* *


----------



## RogueJK (Apr 23, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> * I racked my brain, trying to figure out the worst PrC. I flipped through all the class books and random other sources and I came to this conclusion:
> I hate PrCs.
> ::snip::
> *




I think that I am starting to agree with you... 

IMHO, in general, kits are better than PrCs.  (Not all kits, though.)  I like the kit concept, but not how most of the kits were handled, mostly with regards to balance.  I don't like the prestige class system very much at all, though.  

If a character wants to become a Chibby Chub (  ), then they can get most of the character concept fleshed out through skills and feats.  For those abilities that you can't get from feats, a kit is applied at character creation which adds certain special abilities at various levels.

This way, a character can be a Chibby Chub from level 1, instead of being a normal Fighter/Rogue/Whatever until 6th level or so when they become a "real" Chibby Chub.  It saves some work for the DM, too, and it works better for the characters.  It's also better for lower-level games, in which nobody has access to Prestige Classes yet.  

Perhaps Prestige Classes could be left in as representations of various organizations.  This way, if you join the Ravagers, Red Wizards, Harpers, or whatever during the course of the game, then you can be a Chibby Chub who happens to be a Red Wizard, too.

But maybe I'm just old-school...   

_/me leaves to think some more._


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2002)

jollyninja said:
			
		

> *weaponmaster, does not need weapon specialisation, does need a bunch of multipurpose feats relating little with the concept of a weaponmaster, which lead to a bunch of abilities derived from the feats that made no sense before. how does limiting the abilities to a single weapon balance things out? typically, characters only carry a couple weapons around anyway with one being their trademark weapon.
> *




The weapon master is the 1E/2E kensai, in thinly-disguised form. The whirlwind attack is straight out of samurai folklore, and the lack of Weapon Spec as a prereq is because it didn't exist in previous editions. 

Using a katana-specialist PrC as the basis for a generic weapon master is idiotic, yes, but that's where the class comes from.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *Player #1:  "I want to play a Fighter who grows up to be a Chibby Chub from the S&F!"
> 
> Me:  "Okay, but you are level 1. You have never seen a Chibby Chub. You have no idea what the requirements are to be a Chibby Chub. You do not have a clue how to become a Chibby Chub."
> *




A better response at this point might be "Chibby Chubs don't exist. Pick a different class." If they ask why, tell them because Chibby Chubs don't fit the setting. If they ask why, tell them the precise reasons for which Chibby Chubs go against your vision for the campaign world. If they persist, tell them it's because you said so.

This does assume that you actually have a vision for your campaign world in the first place, and that Chibby Chubs don't fit it. I've always been of the opinion that it's the DM's job to come up with a world that he/she wants to DM. Just as you decide what nations, races and societies exist in the world, you also decide what prestige classes should be allowed. There's nothing in the book that says every class published by every company must exist somewhere in the world.

Allowing everything doesn't result in more flavour; it just results in mush. And mush is bland. But that isn't the fault of prestige classes per se. Even if they didn't exist, the problem would still be around.



> *
> In gameplay, I always take the "allowing PCs access to prestige classes is purely optional" route." (pg. 27 DMG.) I feel like this is a copout, however, and I wish PrCs were a variant and had a huge title that said:  VARIANT: PRESTIGE CLASSES  .
> *




How on earth is this a copout?


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 23, 2002)

RogueJK said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think that I am starting to agree with you...
> 
> ...




I agree partway, and I think it'd be ideal if 3e weren't as burned by some of the horrible kit ideas from before.  The problem with kits is that there are certain ideas that revolve around being well trained and compotent before you can have your foot in the door, while there are other things that you should be from first level on, when you can least afford the feats and skill points needed to "customize".  In a perfect world, you'd have both.

But I've always been a proponent of someone actually filling out the info that the PHB and DMG each give half a nod and proceed to ignore.  Kits are just class modification templates made easy, and for things that you should be right out of apprenticeship (court mage instead of the bookish standard, a lightly armored bareback riding amazon, archer-rangers, and non-battle clerics for a few easy ideas).  Prestige classes, OTOH, are for the things like ninjas or bladesingers or rarefied archmages that only accept you when you've proven yourself "worthy" of their teachings.  Neither alone can really cover all the options you'd want.


----------



## Ace (Apr 23, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> * *ConcreteBuddha flips through the various supplements he has purchased.*
> 
> I racked my brain, trying to figure out the worst PrC. I flipped through all the class books and random other sources and I came to this conclusion:
> 
> ...




I am with you on this one. PRC's are banned from my game. I do offer some prestige feats to simulate PRC abilities and a few more class specializations like my Sorcerer lineage specilizations so the number of options is still there without all the shoehorning.

Squirrel Disciple, LOL thats actually sounds like a god PRC idea. Get limbrunning, nut related powerz, speak with squirrels, Teleport to Nutkin land....
HMM


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 23, 2002)

* "you also decide what prestige classes should be allowed." 
--hong *

It's not that I believe that certain PrCs don't fit the setting, or that specific ones go against my campaign vision. 

I don't like prestige classes. The very idea of a prestige class bothers me. I don't feel that a character should have to be a L10 Fighter/ L3 Lasher to be a master with whips. I don't think there is an entire group of casters with the Elemental Savant class (or any PrC) tacked on. High level characters are rare enough. 

I believe there is a better way of handling guild memberships, specializations and cultures within the system already presented without having to multiclass obscure PrCs.  I already use a variation of the "prestige feats" and guild specific spells that Ace alluded to. I like the idea of having certain "kit templates" available depending on culture and background (as long as they are more for flavor than number bonuses).

I like the idea of a 13th level fighter who specialized in whips. I like the idea of a 17th level wizard who specializes in fire magic. I don't like the way PrCs handle these characters. I don't think it is necessary to assign a PrC to every variation possible in a character.

I think half of the PrCs out there could be viable feat chains or spells and the other half could be mimicked by multiclassing with the 11 basic classes. (The other half don't exist.) 
.
.
.
P.S. The reason why I feel like banning PrCs is a copout is because every product in existence uses them as a way of filling their pages. PrCs are not a variant, IMHO, because every publisher assumes that DnD players are using them. DMs are really not given the choice on whether or not to use PrCs because they are prevalent in all supplemental material as the only way to handle guild memberships, cultures and expertise.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Apr 23, 2002)

What I'd like to see more, would be interesting, original and powerful prestige classes.

I don't appreciate game balance in certain level of creative thinking, since it seems to make people re-create same thing after same thing keeping normal character classes balance in mind.

This is good, but it also sucks big-time. There are almost always weak preq-feats, that seem to be there only for reason 'go away power-gamer' (toughness and the like). And in many case, they don't seem to exist for any in-game reason, though I can logic in any crap I like, of course.

Some so called prestige classes would also work better as variations of base-class.

I hate feat-chains, especially when some publisher, "ah so creativily", creates a new one, that doesn't at worst case use anything from base rules as starting basis. 'So, how unlimited number of feats we did have again' is something I always think when seeing this.

Also, there are few 'what they were thinking' classes like 'Hospitaler', that have interesting rule-loops for every min-maxer who cares for such.

I don't like class power coming from loop-holes.

Also, if some prestige class allows character to enter at 10th level earliest, I think that organization/group/whatever should give character something worth wanting. If that balances as win some-loose some with original class, I might consider it good, if it had something original (and not just something, that can be gained through feats or 'normal' multiclassing).

Class like 'Dragon Disicpline', which through interesting idea, is complitely pointless (why not just make half-dragon in the first place, if dm allows).

And my personal bias are classes created for both sorcerers and wizards, without keeping in mind sorcerer only gets knowledge (arcane) as class skill, and no bonus-metamagic feats either, and new spells levels later to boot.

I didn't put my point out very well. My 'I want more powerful Prc:s'- bias comes from fact that Prc:s appear to be something you can only access at higher levels. Such characters are not naive kiddies anymore, so why would they ever want to become something they gain very little for at that point.

Specialization should be made at character creation, or during first 3 levels. There was valid point in that in 2nd edition kits.

I also have suspension of disbelief-problem with, let's say, 'secret order of assassins' who supposingly train theri members from young age (or so one would think), but actually, their lowest ranking members are 11th level characters.

Weaponmaster is pointless-feat-chain-hell type character.

I agree with somebody who said core D&D was made with levels 1-12 in mind. I guess that's why D&D vision of high level play is so uncertain and often mishandled.

I don't hold my breath for epic rules either, though never know.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 23, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> * I hate PrCs.
> 
> As a DM, PrCs are a pain. This is what happens to me:
> 
> ...




I have to say that I 100% disagree.  I LOVE PrCs.

And I think you are greatly over complicating things.  Not every PrC needs a guild that churns them out.  Why can't a character who is practicing a certain focus just simply get better at that focus?  This is the way it seems to me to occur in fantasy fiction.  

If a Fighter 1 wants to become a chibby chub at level 7, he should start working towards it now.  His behavior and combat style should tend to be like a chibby chub in training.  Over the course of the next several levels he gets better at fighting and at being like a chibby chub.  This includes gaining the skills and feats that are prereqs for the class.  Eventually, by level 7, the character has mastered the basic chub skills and gains the abilities of a L1 chibby chub.


----------



## zouron (Apr 23, 2002)

Well I think there are a few PrC out there that shouldn't have been created at all, but in general I actually like PrCs. On that note the only one I have had as a player was the wayfarer guide and I loved it heh possibly not the most powerful but definately a different PrC.

I think many PrCs come into their full glory in certain types of campaigns while others they wouldn't work for. So I would point any out that I really dislike/like here.

There is though a few I dislike due to balance problems and the fact they seem to go against the concept of not belonging to just one class of characters.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 24, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn--


* 1) * I do not believe I am "overcomplicating things". PrCs, IMHO, require some form of training. They do not spontaneously appear in a level 7 character. 

Read the description of a PrC in the DMG: "Additionally, the character must meet nonrule-related requirements in-game, such as group membership fees, special training exercises, quests and so forth." pg. 27

The above tells me that there has to be a group of other Chibby Chubs who accept new members and train the character in the secret lore of being a Chibby Chub.
.
.
* 2) * The level 1 character who says, "I want to be a Chibby Chub!", puts unneeded work on the DM to create a group of Chibby Chubs while the PCs are only level 1. For someone who does not believe that most PrCs are balanced and/or functional, (i.e. Arcane Archer) and does not use a published campaign setting, this is an added level of complexity when most of my already limited time should be spent on making an adventure for the party at level 1.
.
.
* 3) * If a Fighter wants to be a Whip Specialist at level 7, what is the difference if said character stays as a Fighter and takes whip related feats, some of them whip-specific? You can still call that character a Lasher, but from a game perspective, he is a 7th level Fighter. Why can I not tweak with the Fighter class exclusively for that character's specialty and give the character the same types of bonuses without that character actually gaining a new class?
.
.
* 4) * I dislike the fact that not one single character stays as a single class character or even a consistent PHB multiclass character in a long term campaign. I have never seen a 20th level Fighter. I feel that most characters are "mush", as hong so aptly named it.
.
.
* 5) * I realize that characters receive a limited amount of feats. I am a proponent that feats taken at higher levels should be worth more than feats taken at lower levels. Spells work that way already. At level 15, your feat selection should not be limited to the same feats that a level 1 character can choose. New feat chains fail to see this point.

Example: A feat that combined Supreme Cleave and Supreme Mobility (both from the Master Samurai PrC) into one feat would not be balanced at level 1, but at level 15, this is acceptable. Especially when it's requirements are a +15 BAB, Mobility and Great Cleave.

When I mention feat chains, I do not mean to imitate the present low level Power Attack/Dodge chains. I mean to evolve the idea of these chains to the level of high end gaming, which they so deservedly need.
.
.
* 6) * I'm happy that you love PrCs. I hate PrCs. I am attempting to explain my reasons for hating them. Please explain your reasons for liking them. Then we may have some common ground to work with.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 24, 2002)

*Yeah...*

And none of those points are rational; just to reiterate your argument, you dislike prestige classes because you get some type of joy out of seeing a mono-class read such as wiz20? This is the mindset which I often see on boards and which i abhor. You believe the rules should have their own aesthetic, as oppossed to simply allowing for consistent in-game task resolution. Bah!!! 

1) WHY would a prestige class have to be attached to some organization?

2) WHY can't you simply accept them as what they are; a modular, late game variant for certain core classes?

3) WHY do you distinguish between the effect of feats and skills and class, not on any rational balance argument, but on some romantic meta-game notion of liberation? If you want flexibility the former is to be preferred, if you want balance/specialization prcs more than have a place at the table.

3a) WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE BOTH FEAT/SKILLS and Prcs that allow pushes characters into the same niche, only to differnt degrees?


----------



## Crothian (Apr 24, 2002)

I like and use prestige classes.  So, I';m going to try to offer my reasons that are along the opposite pole from yours.  

1) Having groups of prestige classes helps populate the world.  It adds NPCs and having the character seek them out for training gives a a little more personal direction.  It allows the character to work towards something concreate.  Also, having a character take time and money to train is something I always like.  

2) Okay, when level one characters say they want  to be a certain prestige class, I then think how this particuliar group fitsinto the world, or even if they do.  When the PC says he is working toward Arcane archer, or whatever I can tell him if it's allowed or not.  Then I can say that there is a school that you know of at such and such, or that he's heard rumors and stories from the east of these people.  I don't have to come up with it all right then and there.  I can create bread crumbs and make the character seek out and find this group and then role play a session of him earning his right to be trained by them.

3) A fighter can be a whip specialist.  You can easily take the Lashers abilities and get them through multi classing or make them feats.  THere is nothing wrong with this at all.  Even with prestige classes, I've had characters want to take this route.  Choices are good.

4) Haven't seen long term core characters?  Interesting.  I've seen Cleric, Ranger, and Barbarian straight classes up to 15 and beyond.  I've seen Fighter/rogues and Rogue /sorcerers.  In the current game, the bard has 4 levels of lasher and 13 of Bard.  The rest of his levels are going into Bard.  Personally, I think as long as the character concept stands up to all this multi classing, then I don't care how many classes a character has.

5) I'm in big favor of higher and more powerful feat chains.  

6) Those are some of the reasons I like them.  I'm happy with them, but by all means hate them with great venom.  THere are other parts of the game that I really hate, that others don't.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 24, 2002)

Crothian--

Thank you for replying to my post in a civilized manner. I am glad we can at least see each others point of view without having to resort to flaming attacks.

* 1) * I specifically like the idea that PrCs are concrete. A player can say, "I'm a L8 Fighter/L2 Chibby Chub", which is more concrete than "I'm a L10 Fighter who specializes in whips." That player can also look to a guild of high level characters and say, "That group is a bunch of Knights of the Blah." That is a good point.

* 2) * True, it is not necessary to completely flesh out the guilds in question at level 1. However, I feel that there is a lack of emphasis on the actual group these random PrCs belong to, than on the number of bonuses said character gets for gaining the class. 

When a player comes up to me and says, "I want to play a Deepwood Sniper, do you have them in your campaign?", it has less to do with guild membership and character concept, than gaining the improved critical abiltity or poison use. I have no way of knowing if those abilities are balanced with the main classes. 

I would rather use the standard 11 and tweak those, than have to balance the hundreds of PrCs out there with the standard classes.

* 3) * I do not mind if other people use PrCs, or even love them ecstatically. I am just trying to show why I dislike them, and why it is okay, in general, to not like them.  Thank you for explaining to me why you like them.
.
.
.
.
jasamcarl---

Rationality does not necessarily equal Good, IMHO.

* "just to reiterate your argument, you dislike prestige classes because you get some type of joy out of seeing a mono-class read such as wiz20?" *

Please do not put words in my mouth. Please do not reiterate my argument in a flaming, retalitory manner.

* "This is the mindset which I often see on boards and which i abhor." *

Neat. Go on abhorring all day long that people have different mindsets than you. Maybe you might begin to understand that people have opinions, and that they should be allowed to share them without being ridiculed or mocked. If you disagree with an opinion, fine: but BE NICE!

* "You believe the rules should have their own aesthetic, as oppossed to simply allowing for consistent in-game task resolution. Bah!!!" *

No, I believe that the use of a PrC is NOT a "consistent in-game (tool for) task resolution." I think that is my entire point. 

* 1) * Why would a prestige class NOT be attached to some organization?

* 2) * Why CAN you accept them as what they are; a modular, late game variant for certain core classes?

* 3) * Why do you distinguish between the effect of feats and skills and class, not on a real-world, in-game experience, but on a rational balance theory? If you want flexibility the latter is to be preferred, if you want a GOOD game, in my _ humble experience _ , PrCs are a waste of time. 

* 3a) * Why DO you have both feats and skills, AND Prcs that allow characters into the same niche?
.
.
.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 24, 2002)

My only comment is...just have fun. Cause if you're not having fun then you're not playing the right game!


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 24, 2002)

Out of curiousity, what game would be the right game if I wasn't having any fun?


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 24, 2002)

I hope everyone will calm down a little bit, since we don't want a flame war here.  People disagree, so no big deal.

As a designer of many rules, including a lot of prestige classes, I try to make sure that they're balanced, because a lot of players like balanced games.  As a game master and player, I realize that the average prestige class is less likely to unbalance a party than a character who rolls an 18 for his Strength.  In truth, as long as everyone has a chance to contribute, either mechanically or dramatically, I don't care if I have a group with 10 1st level characters and one 20th level character.  The goal is to have fun and tell a good story, and balance is not necessarily required for this.

I mostly just make magic-based prestige classes, because for non-magic classes, most of the abilities _can_ be emulated with feats.  That being said, though, I tend to view non-magic prestige classes as a package deal, an easy way to balance a diversity of powers.  I would let a fighter take "Third Hand" (a Lasher ability) as a feat, or take a level in the class, depending on how much he wants to devote his character to the concept.

Really, why have classes and levels?  You could just make everything skill-based, letting you craft a character however you want.  But then you lose some of the feel of D&D, which is that you can say, "I'm a 10th level fighter."  Everyone knows you've got a pretty powerful combat character there, and it's easier to make a mental image of the power and role of that character.  True, you'd have more depth if you said, "I'm Regdar the Mighty, who slew the white wyrm Calcryx only ten days after I left my warrior academy, and has since claimed the lives and treasure of a dozen more fiendish drakes."

Cool, we know a lot about you.

But from a rules standpoint, it's a lot easier to wrap your head around "I'm a 10th level fighter."

Likewise, prestige classes are a way to define your character quickly and easily.  They're not necessary at all, but they are useful in helping players realize how their character is different from other characters.  They're an interesting tool, but not for everyone.

Oh, and one last thing, on the matter of whether prestige classes should require organizations, consider this: if you say that some prestige classes can be emulated by feats, then all a prestige class inherently is is a combination of powers that a character can gain.  If you don't require your PCs to join an organization to learn Cleave, Great Cleave, and Sunder, why make them _have_ to join one to become a Lasher?  And if spellcasters can learn all kinds of spells on their own, who's to say that they _have_ to visit the library of the Loremasters to gain all the powers of a loremaster.

Don't decide whether you want an organization in your game.  Decide if you'd have a problem with there being a character with a given power.  Then, if the player really wants that ability for his character (and afterall, it's a communal game, so you shouldn't dash your players' hopes), then you could just say that he trains himself.  Logically, if there are Loremasters now, or Lashers, or Ninjas of the Crescent Moon, or Void Disciples, then some time in the past, somebody was the first member of that group.  If he could train himself, so can your PC.  

The organizations are one way to explain a prestige class, just like saying, "I stab him in the lung with my sneak attack."  There can be alternate explanations, though.  "I jam my dagger into his wrist and dislocate his elbow," or "I stab him in the lung" are just two ways to describe +5d6 sneak attack damage.  The rules are just mechanics, a skeleton.  It is up to the players and the GM to decide what the flesh should look like.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 24, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *Crothian--
> 
> Thank you for replying to my post in a civilized manner. I am glad we can at least see each others point of view without having to resort to flaming attacks.
> 
> ...




I'm always try to discuss things civily.  Hopefully, my reputaion around here shows that.   

I've gotta make up this Chibby Chup prestige class.  

I also like the definition it adds to characters.  I think people feel better saying they have levels in lasher, then just having whip feats.  It also gives a little more credence to NPCs when I can say that the Black Bart is not hust an NPC who pissed off the PCs, but a member of the Knights of Bolar.  

You are right.  More info needs to go into the training of prestige classes then in all the powers they get.  It'd be great if a class said this ability is taught by doing this.  That would add another level of detail to the game.  I could role play through training sessions and really get into the characters.

Knowing what presitge classes are balanced for your campaign is really the key issue.  Balance is a neat idea, but unless Monte is specifically reading my notes and blancing the stuff to how I run things, everything will not be balanced to my world.  For instance the Arcane Archer (ya, not the best choice cause it is powerful, but it was the best example i could think of).  I run a low magic world.  A prestige class that allows all the normal arrows to be fired as magical is hugely unbalancing in my game.  

The way I handle it is a PC says he want to go towards Chibby Chub prestige class.  I've read it and know what it is.  First, I think to myself "Does this fit his character?"  some players just pick classes that have powers or look cool.  I want them to fit the character and have the player role play his way into the class.  In my opinion characters don't wake up one morning and decide to multi class (be it into a core class or prestige class).  I want to be able to wacth you role play and be able to predict where the character is going.  If you polay the character right, this should not be a problem for me.  

Secondly, the class needs to be balanced.  So, the sooner I know where the character is going, the more time I have to look over the class.  I don't mind a power increase from the core classes.  What I'm looking for is a power increase from the party.  If I feel the class will do this I will either tone it down informning the player what I'm doing and why, or disallow it out right.  I don't like doing that cause I like options for characters.  I am always willing to work with a player to get theior character concept to work in my game.  THis includes creating feats, skill, classes, anything.  As long as the balance with the other PCs is there, almost anything goes.

THanks for spending the time to show me your side of the issue.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 24, 2002)

Easy the game of Life is the worst game to play cause it's no fun! 

As for the right game, simple any game where you can say "That was FUN! "


----------



## Chun-tzu (Apr 24, 2002)

*what i hate about PrCs*

You know what I hate about prestige classes?

Let's say I've got an Evoker 6/Arcane Devotee of Red Knight 2/War Wizard of Cormyr 5/Archmage 1.

How the **** am I supposed to fit that into the "Class" section on WOTC's player character sheets?


Other than that, I love PrCs.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 24, 2002)

* Chibby Chub *

Master of the swamps, the chibby chub is a warrior skilled in using her amphibious powers to thwart evil, wherever evil stalks the land.

Hit die: d12

* Requirements *
Race: Toad
Base Attack Bonus: +8
Feats: Power Attack, Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Whirlwind Attack

* Class Skills *
The chibby chub's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Animal Empathy (Cha, exclusive skill), Concentration (Con), Jump (Str), Swim (Str), and Wilderness Lore (Wis). See Chapter 4: Skills in the Player's Handbook for skill descriptions.
Skill Points at Each Level: 2 + Int modifier

* Base Attack Bonus *
As a Fighter

* Base Saves *
As a Fighter

* Class Features *
All of the following are class features of the chibby chub prestige class.
* Weapon and Armor Proficiency *
A chibby chub is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, light armor, medium armor and shields. Note that armor check penalties for armor heavier than leather apply to the skills Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Pick Pocket, and Tumble.
* Greater Constitution *
At 1st level, a chibby chub gains the extraordinary ability to apply a +2 bonus to her Constitution score. This bonus increases to +4 at 4th level and +6 at 8th level.
* Tongue Lash *
At 1st level, a chibby chub gains the ability to do damage with an unarmed strike equal to an equivalent level medium-sized monk. For example, a 1st level chibby chub would deal 1d6 points of damage with an unarmed strike.
* Bonus Feats *
At 3rd level, and at 6th level, the chibby chub gains a bonus feat. These feats must be taken from the fighter's list of available feats.
* Supreme Whirlwind Attack *
At 10th level, the chibby chub gains mastery of the secret knowledge of toad lore. With this ability, the chibby chub may sacrifice all her normal attacks to make one attack against all opponents within 100 ft.
.
.
.
.


----------



## ShaneHenry (Apr 24, 2002)

Actually, wouldn't a 'chibby chub' be a freshwater cyprinid fish drawn in the 'child body' anime style?


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 24, 2002)

Hey, who made the stinking PrC, you or me?!? 

Actually, a friend had a toad familiar named Chibbit. I decided to honor his memory.
.
.
.
.
Chib chub? Chibby chub chub chub! Chub chibby chub chib chub, chub chub chib chibbit...
.
.
.
Us Californians got something nutty in the tap water, let me tell you...


----------



## Pyske (Apr 24, 2002)

My new GM is planning to do something I heartily approve of:  he will design prestige classes on the fly, and ignore entry restrictions other than "by invitation only".  This way, the PrC can be tailored to the PC who is interested (is Bob lagging in power relative to the group?  or dominating?) and characters don't need to be magically precognitive at 1st level about what PrC they will be invited to join 4 years down the road.

 . . . . . . . -- Eric


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 24, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> * 1) * I do not believe I am "overcomplicating things". PrCs, IMHO, require some form of training. They do not spontaneously appear in a level 7 character.
> 
> Read the description of a PrC in the DMG: "Additionally, the character must meet nonrule-related requirements in-game, such as group membership fees, special training exercises, quests and so forth." pg. 27
> 
> The above tells me that there has to be a group of other Chibby Chubs who accept new members and train the character in the secret lore of being a Chibby Chub.




Then you are missing the words "such as".  A given PClass may have a group to join, but it may not.  Therefore your statement that there "has to be a group" for the generic Chibby Chubs is overcomplicating things.  

The rule you have quoted says nothing more than that you must meet ALL prerequisites for a given class.  There is no statement to the effect that all PClasses must have these rerquirements, only that they must be met if they exist.

Also, your "spontaneously appear" comment makes me think you did not read my post very well.  



> * 2) * The level 1 character who says, "I want to be a Chibby Chub!", puts unneeded work on the DM to create a group of Chibby Chubs while the PCs are only level 1. For someone who does not believe that most PrCs are balanced and/or functional, (i.e. Arcane Archer) and does not use a published campaign setting, this is an added level of complexity when most of my already limited time should be spent on making an adventure for the party at level 1.




The group error is addressed above.

If you considered a PrC unbalanced, don't use it.  I don't use PClasses I considered unbalanced.  I also don't use feats I consider unbalanced.  Same for spells.  The presence of unbalanced feats and spells has never led me to considere banning feats and spells completely.




> * 3) * If a Fighter wants to be a Whip Specialist at level 7, what is the difference if said character stays as a Fighter and takes whip related feats, some of them whip-specific? You can still call that character a Lasher, but from a game perspective, he is a 7th level Fighter. Why can I not tweak with the Fighter class exclusively for that character's specialty and give the character the same types of bonuses without that character actually gaining a new class?




Who says you can't?

But isn't tweaking the fighter class going to take time away from your making of adventures?



> * 4) * I dislike the fact that not one single character stays as a single class character or even a consistent PHB multiclass character in a long term campaign. I have never seen a 20th level Fighter. I feel that most characters are "mush", as hong so aptly named it.




ok.

 I have not observed this problem.   And I find a whip fighting fighter who becomes a Lasher to be much less of a mush character than a whip fighting fighter who starts taking sword feats when he runs out of decent whip applicable feats.  (Unless you want to take time away from adventure design developing new whip feats)

And I don't think you have correctly described the "mush" idea as presented by Hong.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but if the PClass fits the same concept, it is not mush.  Only when a player starts splashing in classes just to gain an ability, without any tie to the character concept, do you get mush.  Fighter10/Lasher10 is not mush.  Fighter17/Sorc1/Ranger1/Barbarian1  is mush.



> * 5) * I realize that characters receive a limited amount of feats. I am a proponent that feats taken at higher levels should be worth more than feats taken at lower levels. Spells work that way already. At level 15, your feat selection should not be limited to the same feats that a level 1 character can choose. New feat chains fail to see this point.
> 
> Example: A feat that combined Supreme Cleave and Supreme Mobility (both from the Master Samurai PrC) into one feat would not be balanced at level 1, but at level 15, this is acceptable. Especially when it's requirements are a +15 BAB, Mobility and Great Cleave.
> 
> When I mention feat chains, I do not mean to imitate the present low level Power Attack/Dodge chains. I mean to evolve the idea of these chains to the level of high end gaming, which they so deservedly need.




OK.  I don't see where this addresses anything I said.  I'm not sure I agree about the balance.  But I don't see that it matters.  I remain confused how simply allowing a player to take a PClass is more time consuming than building whole new rules.

I find the quantity of feats that non-fighter receive to be much more limiting in character concept development than the quality anyway.



> * 6) * I'm happy that you love PrCs. I hate PrCs. I am attempting to explain my reasons for hating them. Please explain your reasons for liking them. Then we may have some common ground to work with. [/B]




You have made two basic points.  One is a reading of something into the DMG that is not there.

Second, you indicate concern regarding player abuse and munchkin-style power gaming.  This is a player problem.  Not a PClass problem.

I like PClasses because they resolve what I perceive to be the biggest flaw in the level system style.  They allow great flexibility in character design and concept.  A fighter with 11 bonus feats may be able to emulate a wide variety of styles.  A Elven ranger who wants to be especially good at forest survival does not have remotely the same luxury.  The King of the Forest class in MotW allows this option to be achieved much more completely than feats can.


----------



## Number47 (Apr 24, 2002)

Pyske said:
			
		

> *My new GM is planning to do something I heartily approve of:  he will design prestige classes on the fly, and ignore entry restrictions other than "by invitation only".  This way, the PrC can be tailored to the PC who is interested (is Bob lagging in power relative to the group?  or dominating?) and characters don't need to be magically precognitive at 1st level about what PrC they will be invited to join 4 years down the road.
> 
> . . . . . . . -- Eric *




I do something somewhat similar for my game. First, we use only the core books. Secondly, I don't even use the Prestige Classes in the DMG. When a PC gets to be about third level or so, I ask them to come up with a prestige class they would like to aim towards. All prestige classes have fifth-level as a requirement, so they can't take their first level of prestige until sixth level. Then, as player and DM, we design something that works with their character concept, the world we play in and is balanced for the campaign. We usually do up about the first four levels and hold off the rest to see how it's going. That's enough to nail down some requirements and decide if this is an organization-specific class.


----------



## Talath (Apr 24, 2002)

As a game designer, I have to design balanced rules all the time. I discovered a way which gives me the ability to perfectly balance the rules I make.

1) Drink lots of vodka.

2) Sacrifice a chicken.

3) Eat whip cream soup with green olives.

4) Run naked through the streets.

After doing all four within 10 minutes, you will have a perfect sense of rules balance.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 24, 2002)

i can only speak from my experience, but i'd say that prestige classes are the most overhyped part of 3e. they get ink in just about every 3e supplement, and i don't think one of my players has even wanted to join one. it's stuff that you read about, say "hmmmm that's interesting/boring", and then move on. 

they've become "filler" material for quite a few D20 companies, under the assumption that everyone thinks they are cool. maybe i'm in the minority, but when i get to the "new prestige class" section of a supplement, i just skip it. it's wasted ink and paper to me. YMMV


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 24, 2002)

My personal opinion is that PrC's are good for some things and feats are good for somethings.  THEY AREN'T GOOD AT FILLING IN FOR EACH OTHER AT ALL.  When a prestige class does what should be done by a feat, that's a bad prestige class.  When a feat does what should be done by a prestige class, that is a bad feat.


----------



## Crutchie (Apr 25, 2002)

Worst one i have ever seen is one from someone in my group.  

We were in the middle of a old school fantasy campaign(smoothly running) when one person in our party had got killed by a Basilisk.  So he decided he'd make up a prestige class for a "brand new character concept."  Then he gave it to us.(WE TURNED IT DOWN(and got a good laugh))

Here it is:

Gun Blade
Description: The gunblade is a soldier from the future.  He through some accident travels back in time.  As he goes up in levels he remembers that he has technology.

Requirements: The dm says ok

Armour and weapon Prof=Same as fighter

BAB        Fort     Reflex    Will        Special
+1          +2         +0        +2        Feat & Magical Energy Pack
+2          +3         +0        +3        Feat & Laser Rifle
+3          +3         +1        +3        -
+4          +4         +1        +4        Feat
+5          +4         +1        +4        Grenades
+6          +5         +2        +5        Feat
+7          +5         +2        +5        -
+8          +6         +2        +6        Feat
+9          +6         +3        +6        Antimater Rifle
+10        +7         +3        +7        Feat

Feats are gained as a fighter

        Magical Energy Pack=This is an energy pack which has MAGICAL powers so it doesn't run out of energy.
        Laser Rifle=At second level the gunblade after his time travel remebers that he has a laser rifle.
        Grenades=At fifth level he remebers that he has grenades(he never runs out)
        Antimater Rifle=At ninth level the gunmaster remembers his laser rifle is not a laser rifle but a Antimater Rifle.

================================
Get this the only limit is only one per campaign.

WE DID NOT USE THIS!!!!!(good laugh though)


----------



## Claude Raines (Apr 25, 2002)

Crutchie said:
			
		

> *
> Laser Rifle=At second level the gunblade after his time travel remebers that he has a laser rifle.
> *




I just wonder how the person who wrote this justified someone "forgetting" they had a laser rifle?

This wand-like thingy I've been carrying around? Hmmm, I really don't know what it is or how to use it - Wait! I remember now, it's a laser rifle!


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 25, 2002)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *they've become "filler" material for quite a few D20 companies, under the assumption that everyone thinks they are cool. maybe i'm in the minority, but when i get to the "new prestige class" section of a supplement, i just skip it. it's wasted ink and paper to me. YMMV *




So I take you didn't care much for any of the ones in Relics and Rituals or perhaps the ones like the Unfailing in Hollowfaust? *is just curious since I know you like SL but I am curious about your feelings toward SL prestige classes* 


For the record I ALWAYS keep Pr-class world specify and thus I don't use a LOT since SL doesn't have that many NON-Core (so no splat books) other than what's come out.


----------



## dagger (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: Why do i try?*

Amen on that Jasamcarl




			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *I always love that attitude the associates some type of bohemian eliticism with only playing with core rules. As if to say that the type of extreme variation that can only come about with any rules fidelity from some expansion material must be the mark of the 'powergamer' or the even more laughable 'munchkin.' The stigma attached to these terms of course get inflammatory posters noticed and serves to place those of different views on the defensive, as if they are the ones that have to prove balance or lack thereof.
> *


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2002)

Crutchie said:
			
		

> *
> Gun Blade
> Description: The gunblade is a soldier from the future.  He through some accident travels back in time.  As he goes up in levels he remembers that he has technology.
> *




Now come on. If the space marine was good enough for a Talisman expansion, surely a gun blade is good enough for D&D.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 25, 2002)

This is what you said:



			
				Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *
> If a Fighter 1 wants to become a chibby chub at level 7, he should start working towards it now.  His behavior and combat style should tend to be like a chibby chub in training.  Over the course of the next several levels he gets better at fighting and at being like a chibby chub.  This includes gaining the skills and feats that are prereqs for the class.  Eventually, by level 7, the character has mastered the basic chub skills and gains the abilities of a L1 chibby chub. *




The level 1 fighter in question does not know the requirements to become a chibby chub because 1) this is metagame knowledge 2) he has never seen one, nor known their entrance requirements (if there is a guild) or 3) does not know (if self-trained) the precise steps required to become a PrC. 



> _Originally posted by Axiomatic Unicorn _ *
> If you considered a PrC unbalanced, don't use it. I don't use PClasses I considered unbalanced. I also don't use feats I consider unbalanced. Same for spells. The presence of unbalanced feats and spells has never led me to considere banning feats and spells completely. *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 25, 2002)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So I take you didn't care much for any of the ones in Relics and Rituals or perhaps the ones like the Unfailing in Hollowfaust? *is just curious since I know you like SL but I am curious about your feelings toward SL prestige classes....*





honestly, nightfall, i don't even like the SL ones. and to be truthful, i think there should be about 5 PrC's and that's it. i'd keep the assassin, the blackguard and the shadowdancer. maybe a few others. that way, if someone actually met one of those characters or if one of my players wanted to become one, it would mean a little more. 

of course i know i am free to ignore them, but it's like anything. with overexposure, their coolness definitely goes down. but, as i said, YMMV. i'm just a crotchety old stick-in-the-mud!


----------



## Crutchie (Apr 25, 2002)

Do the above question on how he justified it was:
"He went through time travel so he forgot about it....now he remember it"(ditto for grenades and antimatter rifle)

lol thats what i call roleplaying(jk)


----------



## bwgwl (Apr 25, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *The level 1 fighter in question does not know the requirements to become a chibby chub because 1) this is metagame knowledge 2) he has never seen one, nor known their entrance requirements (if there is a guild) or 3) does not know (if self-trained) the precise steps required to become a PrC. *




while i like your idea of prestige feats and such, i wanted to specifically comment on the quote above.

1. metagame knowledge -- i can sort of buy that argument, but not in every case. sometimes that level1 character _is_ going to know, in-game, what the requirements are for a PrClass. and in that case, it's not metagaming for the PC to plan it out from L1.

2. never seen one -- who says? maybe the character's father was a chibby chub, or his uncle, or his neighbor, or maybe there was a guild of chibby chubs in his hometown, or maybe a traveling chibby chub passed through a few years ago and inspired him.

if the Knights of the Rising Hodge are a prestige class, and the Knights of the Rising Hodge have been defending the duchy of Upper Fnordia for generations, then a L1 character from Upper Fnordia who has been dreaming of joining the Knights of the Rising Hodge his whole life is going to know very well what the requirements for entry are, and what he needs to accomplish and be capable of before being allowed to join.

if the PrClass is an organization that exists in the world, there will most likely be a body of common knowledge about that organization that exists that PCs will know. thus, they should indeed be able to plan their skill and feat purchases with the PrClass in mind from L1 (should they so desire) and i don't see that as metagame thinking at all.

also, i think i may have a different conception of organization-based PrClasses. just because an organization _offers_ a PrClass, doesn't mean every member of that organization has levels in it.

for example, in a thieves' guild that offers a PrClass that requires you to be a 6th level rogue to qualify for, there will most definitely be members who are 1st-5th level rogues. these rogues obviously won't have access to the PrClass, but will be _very_ well-informed about the requirements, as they know what they need to be capable of in order to "move up the ranks" in the organization.

3. i see your point here -- for self-trained PrClasses.

on a positive note, i definitely agree with the notion that PrClass should be the DM's purview and not the publisher's -- except in published settings. generic products should not have PrClasses, because, IMO, all PrClasses should be setting-specific.

i like the idea of your Prestige Feats but i still see the need for PrClasses. Prestige Feats would be good if you only wanted to give _one_ special or unique ability to a character, because of the relative scarcity of feats. PrClasses are good when there's a small handful of unique abilities that fit well together as a common theme, that are usually found in the same individuals.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 25, 2002)

*Uh, Budha...*

Perhaps you can fill me in on your definition of 'good' game. Mine was one that rewards a wide variety of INGAME results in a balanced fashion. Again, yours seems to be one that provides a certain mechanic which you like to look at. Prcs and feats can coexist because they allow for different DEGREES of specialization while maintaing balance. Your refutation of Prcs amount to little more than a refutation of the class system, with all its benefits and drawbacks, but only illogically applying it to Prcs..come back with a proper argument please...


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 25, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> The level 1 fighter in question does not know the requirements to become a chibby chub because 1) this is metagame knowledge 2) he has never seen one, nor known their entrance requirements (if there is a guild) or 3) does not know (if self-trained) the precise steps required to become a PrC.




I do not see any basis for any of this.

You are forcing the Class to be a concrete thing rather than an abstract concept.  I don't see that the chibby chub would even have to know that he was a chibby chub.  I find your thinking to be a worse example of metagame.  The idea of "entrance" is metagame.

To stay with the lasher idea rather than the undefined chibby chub, the prereqs strike me as obvious things that someone devoted to learning to fight with a whip would do.  The character does not think "Gee, I have a BAB of 5+ and these other prereqs that guy told me I needed, now I can be a Lasher and not draw attacks of opportunity.  Yeah Me."    I see it as the guy is dedicated to fighting with the whip.  Eventually he gets so good that he gains the close combat ability.  There is no "entrance" or sudden dramatic shift as you seem to demand.  It is just a natural progression.  

Everything you listed implies that the character understands what a prerequisite is, what a class is, what a level is.  All completely metagame ideas.  




> The difference I make here between feats, skills and spells, and PrCs is that I believe only a few of the former are unbalanced, while all of the latter are. Hence why I dropped PrCs.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




Ok, so PClasses are broken, and feats are not.  Then you show me this feat that does not come close to replacing the class and is still completely broken.  

????



> 5) Prestige Feats and Spells are universal, and do not require the PC to learn a seperate class. Additionally, they are more flexible and easier to tone down or discard in an active PC than a PrC.




I don't see anything that makes one bit of the second sentence true.
And I have not seen any reason for separate classes being a bad thing.  What makes Fighter8/Lasher2 less valid than Fighter8/Rogue2 or Fighter10?  You complain about metagame thinking, but you are the one worrying about the 100% metagame concept of classes.  



> 6) I am of the mindset that a PC must learn a PrC from somewhere (it seems to be the whole point of a PrC), while a Prestige feat, skill or spell could or could not be self taught. (I don't know why this is. Maybe the DMG description of a PrC impressed this idea upon me.)




This is still your arbitrary addition to the concept.  
Can Weapon Specialization: Whip be self taught?  Why or why not?  How does the fighter know he needs weapon focus as a prereq without metagame thinking?

How does a character know they have changed classes?

I could be of the mindset that divine spells can only be cast while standing on your head and dropping superglue in your nose.  That would make me think that divine spells were not good.  



> 7) I am not saying that the class system is wrong. I am saying that there shouldn't be a class for everything and that those classes shouldn't overshadow the classes in the PHB or other basic classes, such as the Samarai in OA.




Who says they overshadow them?  Who says there is a class for everything?  What does the Samurai have to do with anything?



> 8) I do not believe classes should be applied to specific in-game guilds, organizations, mentors, and orders of knowledge because classes are metagame knowledge. When an NPC refers to himself as a Knight of the Blah, they could and should be able to be a level X fighter with a certain outlook who pays his dues and learns some neat, specialized fighting abilities, not necessarily a PrC.




Why? Who says a Fighter X can't be a Knight of Blah?  Who says all member of the Order of the Bow must take the Order of the Bow Initiate PClass?   



> 9) I dislike that when someone quits being a member of an order, guild or organization, etc... that character cannot get rid of the PrC class and the PrC abilities can go away.




????  Depends on the class.  Are you saying if an Order of the Bow intiate quits the order he should suddenly forget some of his skills with the bow?



> 10) Just because something is an option, does not necessarily mean it's a good option, IMHO.




So???   I don't see any reason for you to include IMHO in that line.  I also don't see how this statement is at all relevant to whether PClasses are a good option or not

I'll end with a comment that you are using the term metagame as a complaint A LOT, yet it is clear to me that if you would simply let go of your own deluge of metagame thinking, 99% of your concerns would go away.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: Uh, Budha...*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Perhaps you can fill me in on your definition of 'good' game. Mine was one that rewards a wide variety of INGAME results in a balanced fashion. Again, yours seems to be one that provides a certain mechanic which you like to look at. Prcs and feats can coexist because they allow for different DEGREES of specialization while maintaing balance. Your refutation of Prcs amount to little more than a refutation of the class system, with all its benefits and drawbacks, but only illogically applying it to Prcs..come back with a proper argument please... *




I completely agree with you.

He seems to be completely hung up on the metagame concepts and bean counting.

And, as you point out, by his logic it should be impossible for a fighter to take a level of rogue and gain sneak attack +1d6, because that would be meta-game.  How else would he know to take the class?

In my view, if the fighter was using any tactics that fight with the sneak attack idea, it would only be natural for him to take a level of rogue along the way.  He would not know that he was a fighter6/Rogue 1 and his buddy is a fighter7.  He would just know that his buddy was a little bit more solid in a straight up fight, but not quite as good at getting in that perfect shot at just the right time.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2002)

I liked it better when the discussion was about which were the goofiest prestige classes instead of arguing that the very concept of a prestige class was the worst thing ever created.

Prestige classes (and fighting styles) are about synergy. If you do x, y, and z then you get special bonus z+. Feat chains do this a little but prestige classes take it to a new step. If everything was a feat then fighters would just pick the best class abilities of every class.

Players typically enjoy prestige classes, it makes them feel more important. Why do a lot of DMs want to always crush their players underfoot with impossible challenges and taking away all their stuff that they love?

You can certainly customize every character in your campaign but a lot of us would rather have some standardized packages that we could use to discuss our games with other people and have them understand what we are talking about.


----------



## Psion (Apr 25, 2002)

The milkmaid PrC!

(see:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?threadid=4843&perpage=20&pagenumber=9

Scroll down to mytholder's post. It's worth a laugh.)


----------



## River (Apr 25, 2002)

gfunk said:
			
		

> *I'd say the Dragon Disciple (version 3.0 -- after the Sage flip-flopped twice) kind of sucks.  Giving up ten spellcasting levels for a clerical BAB and a half-dragon template seems pretty weak. *




Fools!  You're all fools!  Muhahahaha!

The Dragon Disciple isn't a Sorcerer Prestiege class its a Fighter Prestiege class for fighters who took 1 level of Sorcerer!!!!!

The Dragon Disciple is a crushing machine!


River


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *The milkmaid PrC!
> 
> (see:
> 
> ...




The toilet cleaner
The UNsenet poster
The UNsenet monk


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Apr 25, 2002)

The milkmaid PrC is awesome. I'm going to use that one in MY game.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 25, 2002)

Sokay Stannis. I don't think Pr-classes are what make a world. Gods, the creatures and the CHARACTERS do. So long as you enjoy that...well then I'm glad you're having fun!


----------



## Al (Apr 25, 2002)

Hmmm...typical.

You leave the boards a few days and what started as an innocent request for people's least favourite Prestige Classes degenerates into a debate on whether Prestige Classes should exist at all.

Not quite the original intention, but there we go.

My stance is that PrCs are interesting, and the thematics can be good, but the trick is not to be too restrictive.

A bad PrC IMO is one of the following:

1. Too strong (cos players will always take them)
2. Too weak (cos players will never take them- with a few exceptions.  And you know the kind of people they are.)
3. Too narrow (you mean I can't be an Elite Arcane Battleaxe Knight of the Order of Gibbering Mouther Slayers?)
4. Too generic (Weaponmaster is often cited)

That was the sort of thing I was looking for, not a debate on PrCs altogehter.  But there ya go.


----------

