attitudes towards prestige classes [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Red Fel

2014-03-13, 01:17 PM

What are your thoughts feelings and opinions on them? I feel like they're great, but if they don't hurt you in the prereqs they probably aren't balanced. How do you guys feel?

It sounds like you're looking at PrCs through the lens of "if this class is giving you more power, there needs to be an upfront drawback to balance it," and that's not entirely true. Not all PrCs have drawbacks upfront. Some will have a sort of ongoing tax, such as classes that offer only partial casting progression. (Trust me, for casters, CL is a big deal.)

But that's not it either. Because not all PrCs really have any drawback. Some are purely better. And while I could talk about how the lack of balance even among base classes is ubiquitous, and that therefore attempting to balance PrCs against them is a fool's errand, I'll instead put it this way: PrCs are inherently cooler. Or, at least, they should be. Let's compare, shall we? Would you rather be a Cleric or Sacred Warder of Bahamut? Wizard or Dweomerkeeper? Paladin or Fist of Raziel?

Do you see? Even the names sound cooler. And they are. You're taking a generic concept - a base class - and specializing it into something that sounds, and often is, quite awesome. Generally, this does involve some sacrifice. Some classes don't progress caster level, for example. Others might not advance your maneuvers, or your unarmed strike, or your BAB quite as much. Those aren't sacrifices made upfront due to prereqs, but sacrifices made by staying in the PrC.

And others have virtually no sacrifice at all. Consider, for example, the Thrallherd. It requires one power, one feat, and fifth-level manifesting. You lose two levels of manifesting. You gain Leadership with none of the drawbacks, several nice abilities, and at capstone, a second cohort. Or take Moonspeaker. The only real prereqs are 2nd-level divine casting and the Shifter race - and if you're playing Shifter, there's a good chance you chose it specifically for this class. Common entry into the class is through Druid, because it advances Druid features. It gives you 10/10 caster progression, substantially augments summoning, makes Shifter feats viable, and gives you 6/10 Wild Shape progression. (I suppose you're giving up 4 levels of Druid Wild Shape, technically.) It's basically a massive serving of awesome free stuff.

Are PrCs unbalanced with regard to base classes? The two examples listed above are. But there are others that are actually worse than their base classes. We don't discuss them; they stay in the basement. But that's not the point.

The point is that PrCs are a reward. They're a way to make the players feel like their characters are special. Yes, some base classes have an awesome capstone that you'll miss out on if you take a PrC. And others don't. But it's not about that.

It's about being able to say, "Do you know who I am? I am the Ordained Champion of Heironeous!" Or, "Fool! You will learn the proper respect when confronting a Dweomerkeeper!" Or, "This planet cries out for justice. The Fist of the Forest will answer it."

BWR

2014-03-13, 01:46 PM

ngilop

2014-03-13, 02:06 PM

I like prestige classes

they should be a way to better focus/specilize your character that over what a base class can and should be able to do ( unfortuneatly later on in 3rd ed life WoTC was like lets make a base class of it!)

I agree with BWR being against PrC dipping. Its probly my only DO THIS rule I have as a DM, you take a level in a PrC you go all the way to the end.

I feel that PrCs should be lateral improvements.

For instance make up a pyromancer PrC he gets better and better and burning things with fire but at the same time loses ability to perform other things as well ( like he looses the ability to ever use cold damage and his CL for non fire stuff is lowered but at the same time he ignores fire immunity and deals more damage when he casts a fire spell)

Classes like the reaping mauler should not exist, way to make a class actually WORSE at what its supposed to be about WoTC!

at the same time incantrix and such should not exist they are clearly mounds better than NOT going into the class

I have and will always abide by the old 'is it balanced' adage

"are in terms of the most simplest form of opmitization, are people completely ignoring X? if so its too weak, does everybody and their uncle have Y? if so thens its too powerful."

of course there should be a few PRCs that are genrally more powerful for instance racial iconic PrCs should be more powerful than not, the requirements should be a bit harsh to begin it to semi-offset. case in point my own version of the dwarven defender (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16319167&postcount=9)

Person_Man

2014-03-13, 02:32 PM

My opinion is that prestige classes, sub-classes, kits, archetypes, etc., are now and have always been poor game design, created for the convenience of lazy writers in order to fill supplements.

They segregate abilities in a way that makes it difficult players to accomplish what they want. They encourage writers to create numerous cruddy filler abilities. And they often unintentionally screw over players who lack system mastery.

For example, lets say I read through Complete Warrior, and I come across the Drunken Master. I really want Corkscrew Rush, and I like the fluff. So good, so far.

Well first, I have to take at least 1 level of Monk, since it requires Flurry of Blows and Evasion. That also gives me the pre-req of Improved Unarmed Strike for free. But now I also have to take Dodge and Great Fortitude, which are notorious "trap" options. Then I must slog my way through 8 levels of mostly garbage abilities to get to the one useful ability that I want. And when I get to Monk 5/Drunken Master 10, I basically have nowhere to go. I could take 5 more levels of Monk or some other class or some other prestige class, but at that point I'm going low-mid level abilities, whereas other players are gaining 16th-20th level classes.

Now consider a simple alternative. Every class gets a set of leveled spells/powers/maneuvers/tricks/whatever. If a writer wants to add a new ability, he adds it to the list(s) of the appropriate class at the appropriate level. You only write a new class when you have a new sub-sytem that you want to create.

Imagine how much more useful and interesting the Monk would be if he could trade out the abilities of any Monk prestige class at the ECL at which they could normally be gained through prestige classes? What is gained by making players "pay for" the abilities they want by taking a bunch of pre-reqs and abilities they don't want?

Elderand

2014-03-13, 02:40 PM

My opinion is that prestige classes, sub-classes, kits, archetypes, etc., are now and have always been poor game design, created for the convenience of lazy writers in order to fill supplements.

This is why I enjoyed Saga approach, there weren't twelve millions prc, everytime someone new was added it was added to something already existing. (Except for that one new prc which I remember raising a stink).

That being said it's also why I prefer systems whitout classes at all.

But then again classes can be useful in clearly defining a concept. It may be more difficult to come up with a concept and make it work in a truly classeless system.

eggynack

2014-03-13, 02:43 PM

You have a minimal of 2 prestige classes at level 20.
That's the criteria with every group I played with that was atleast slightly decent.
Why's that? Plenty of classes can be perfectly optimal with one prestige class, or even no prestige classes. As for the main topic, I like them, because there's a lot of options there, and I enjoy that. I just makes optimizing stuff more interesting on occasion.

NoACWarrior

2014-03-13, 03:37 PM

I love the general idea, but sadly s it seems that many people, designers included, feel that base classes are merely unfortunate things you have to start with before jumping into a PrC. I also detest PrC dipping. If you take a prestige class you should be prepared to take it all the way. They should usually have some sort of fluff requirement alongside the purely mechanical. They are prestigious and elite, and shouldn't be picked up and discarded at whim.
They should offer specialized options that are hard or impossible to get with base classes, but shouldn't be more powerful than a base class, and they should be worthwhile taking all the way. Actually pulling this off is obviously hard, but it should be a goal.

Usually I may take up to 3 PrCs and dip one or two of them, some for optimization reasons, but mostly for RP reasons. If a prestige Paladin has a traumatic experience with his church or his god, wouldn't it make sense he might stop progressing? Same with spell casting PrCs, they simply aren't studying the same type of specialized magic casting that they did when they became and leveled in the PrC. Martial PrCs could be treated the same way, they don't train or study the same types of attack types to level in said PrC.

Metahuman1

2014-03-13, 04:06 PM

Particle_Man

2014-03-13, 04:58 PM

I like the idea of one prestige class for flavour, but I rarely like a mixture of two or more prestige classes, because then it seems the flavour gets diluted.

And I see some prestige classes as NPC only, either because they are weak (Arcane Archer is weak, but it is interesting in flavour so I could see a party meeting npc ones) or because they are evil (I ban evil pc alignments at my table).

sleepyphoenixx

2014-03-13, 05:17 PM

TheIronGolem

2014-03-13, 06:03 PM

I like prestige classes. I see them more as building blocks than flavor defining though.
Flavor is mutable. Pick the abilities you want to have and reflavor them to fit a character concept, or start with a concept and get abilities that fit into it no matter what the official flavor is.
Dipping, Multiclassing, it's all fine. Pen & Paper gaming is all about imagination. There's no need to limit it to the imagination of the designers.

Seconding this. I frequently discard the "official" fluff that accompanies the class(es) my characters have in favor of what suits my concept. This means I will freely dip whatever classes (base or prestige, I don't care) I need to in order to realize the concept mechanically, and any player or DM who suggests this makes me a munchkin/cheater/bad roleplayer is merely exposing their own failure to understand roleplaying.

Consequently, I also reject the notion that taking PrC levels needs to be "justified" in an in-character sense, or that it said PrC's need to be some kind of in-universe construct like membership in the Knights Of The Paisley Bandana or something. You're essentially asking me to blow a big hole in the fourth wall if you do that; fine for an OOTS-style campaign, but not if you expect me to take your world even slightly seriously.

VoxRationis

2014-03-13, 06:13 PM

I've taken an approach of late wherein every prestige class is associated with a particular group, usually a non-mainstream organization, and anyone wanting to take that prestige class has to be part of that organization in a fairly committed sense. The phrase has "prestige" in its name for a reason: they're not part of normal career paths. A person with a prestige class is not just a skilled fighter, they're a part of the campaign setting in a detailed and meaningful way.

That said, this generally means that prestige classes in my settings are somewhat restricted from the myriad number available, and may be homebrew (since a given campaign setting obviously isn't going to have everything be appropriate for every prestige class), so it's not necessarily the best approach for casual, dungeon-in-a-vacuum sort of play.

VoxRationis

2014-03-13, 06:15 PM

Seconding this. I frequently discard the "official" fluff that accompanies the class(es) my characters have in favor of what suits my concept. This means I will freely dip whatever classes (base or prestige, I don't care) I need to in order to realize the concept mechanically, and any player or DM who suggests this makes me a munchkin/cheater/bad roleplayer is merely exposing their own failure to understand roleplaying.

Consequently, I also reject the notion that taking PrC levels needs to be "justified" in an in-character sense, or that it said PrC's need to be some kind of in-universe construct like membership in the Knights Of The Paisley Bandana or something. You're essentially asking me to blow a big hole in the fourth wall if you do that; fine for an OOTS-style campaign, but not if you expect me to take your world even slightly seriously.

And it's unfortunate that you not only are incapable of seeing your own blatant min-maxing, but insist on tearing down at people who think that a character's abilities should stem from his or her in-character background and situation in a meaningful way.

eggynack

2014-03-13, 06:19 PM

And it's unfortunate that you not only are incapable of seeing your own blatant min-maxing, but insist on tearing down at people who think that a character's abilities should stem from his or her in-character background and situation in a meaningful way.
I don't see how what you're saying and what he said connect. Your character's abilities can be drawn from your background and situation, but that doesn't mean that they have to be drawn from the specific background and situation defined in the fluff of a given PrC. That just seems kinda lazy, actually. And getting what exists in your head and what exists in the game to match doesn't necessarily mean min-maxing. Much of the time, it's just figuring out how all of those head abilities can be represented, and finding ways to do it all, with only enough attention paid to optimization to make sure you're representing those abilities effectively.

TheIronGolem

2014-03-13, 06:21 PM

And it's unfortunate that you not only are incapable of seeing your own blatant min-maxing
I'm incapable of seeing "my own blatant min-maxing" for the same reason I'm incapable of seeing unicorns.

but insist on tearing down at people who think that a character's abilities should stem from his or her in-character background and situation in a meaningful way.
Nothing I said implies that.

My characters' abilities do stem from their backgrounds and situations. It's just that those backgrounds and situations don't necessarily line up with the ones envisioned by whoever designed the class(es) I use in my build, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with using the fluff they offer, either; it's good to have a default available. But the default doesn't always fit.

Any other strawmen you want to knock over while you're at it?

VoxRationis

2014-03-13, 09:42 PM

I'm incapable of seeing "my own blatant min-maxing" for the same reason I'm incapable of seeing unicorns.

Nothing I said implies that.

My characters' abilities do stem from their backgrounds and situations. It's just that those backgrounds and situations don't necessarily line up with the ones envisioned by whoever designed the class(es) I use in my build, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with using the fluff they offer, either; it's good to have a default available. But the default doesn't always fit.

Any other strawmen you want to knock over while you're at it?

You said specifically, "I also reject the notion that taking PrC levels needs to be "justified" in an in-character sense... You're essentially asking me to blow a big hole in the fourth wall if you do that". Meaning that you think you can take whatever class features you want, so long as you don't skip any steps on the class abilities by level tables, and the ensuing abomination of a character should be mutely accepted as normal both in-character and at the table.
Well, I reject the notion that you can take whatever mechanical advantages you want and simply say that you're doing something else. The mechanics should stem from the ideas, not vice versa. If we extend that reasoning to, say, equipment, it falls apart. One cannot use a greatsword mechanically and claim that it's your accountant (who happens to be a Warblade 10/Barbarian 1/Frenzied Berserker 2/Cloistered Cleric 7) using a quill.
I also reject the notion that restricting a prestige class to a particular organization automatically blows a hole in the fourth wall. It makes sense that, say, a potent fighting style or magical technique could be restricted to a single fighting school or mage's organization, or to the teachings of a single isolated people in the mountains somewhere. Information doesn't flow as freely in a fantasy medieval culture as it does in ours. Things can be easily hidden, and many people, having developed a new technique for golem forging or flawless parrying or whatever, are unlikely to share it with everyone, lest their enemies start using their hard-earned secrets. The characters don't have to know about class levels to know that some people cast druid spells and some people cast wizard spells; they similarly don't have to know about the rules to know that some wizards have techniques separate from others, and those wizards all come from X place.
Now, I will admit that this is not necessarily true of all such techniques, and that particular prestige classes and the like could find their way into becoming more widespread, but it cannot be accepted as a given that any fighter who wants to become a Brilliant Kazoo-Warrior of Hila can.

Coidzor

2014-03-13, 10:40 PM

What are your thoughts feelings and opinions on them? I feel like they're great, but if they don't hurt you in the prereqs they probably aren't balanced. How do you guys feel?

I think that balancing a powerful prestige class by making the prerequisites onerous or painful to qualify for means the designer had the wrong idea and they should have gone with something less over-the-top abusive that required less pain and more specialization.

Flickerdart

2014-03-13, 10:49 PM

It's an unfortunate fact that WotC never really thought out the late game very well - classes like the paladin and barbarian basically stop getting meaningful class features past level 5. PrCs are a perfectly acceptable solution for this problem.

In general, PrCs have two good functions. One is a calibration mechanism - I can take a powerful base class like the wizard and then tone it down with a PrC like Swiftblade, or take a bad class like the fighter and kick things up a notch by heading into Divine Crusader. The other is a place for powerful character-defining abilities to live in, without being limited to a single character class.

Punishing a character who wants to enter a prestige class (or for that matter, gain a feat) by forcing bad prerequisites upon him is really bad design, though. Either the option isn't worth it, and nobody takes it, or it is worth it, and once you get it you go from rubbish to awesome - which doesn't actually enter "balanced and fair" at any point.

HunterOfJello

2014-03-13, 11:19 PM

Now consider a simple alternative. Every class gets a set of leveled spells/powers/maneuvers/tricks/whatever. If a writer wants to add a new ability, he adds it to the list(s) of the appropriate class at the appropriate level. You only write a new class when you have a new sub-sytem that you want to create.

Is this a hidden 4e shout out? If so, good job.

gadren

2014-03-13, 11:26 PM

tyckspoon

2014-03-13, 11:36 PM

Zanos

2014-03-13, 11:48 PM

I like prestige classes. I see them more as building blocks than flavor defining though.
Flavor is mutable. Pick the abilities you want to have and reflavor them to fit a character concept, or start with a concept and get abilities that fit into it no matter what the official flavor is.
Dipping, Multiclassing, it's all fine. Pen & Paper gaming is all about imagination. There's no need to limit it to the imagination of the designers.
Agreed. Mechanics should be tools for the imagination, not chains. Maybe I want to make a caster who uses circle magic who isn't a slaver who beats children. Maybe I don't want my illusionist master to be a gnome(because gnomes are gross.)

Some of the prestige classes have pretty terrible executions. "Oh, I'm about to hit sixth level. Better go pay my 1000gp guild intiation fee." "Better go kill a hippo." "Better go get struck by a lightning bolt." "Better go get castrated" "Better go diddle a unicorn." And assorted stupidity. Those are real prestige class requirements, by the way.

Some prestige classes are just poorly, poorly executed. In concept they're great tools for mechanically customizing characters and getting them to specialize in certain areas. They also enable really cool builds that just aren't possible with base classes. But you shouldn't need to take Sharpened Fingernails and dunk your head in a piranha tank by sixth level to make you can qualify.

TheIronGolem

2014-03-14, 12:13 AM

You said specifically, "I also reject the notion that taking PrC levels needs to be "justified" in an in-character sense... You're essentially asking me to blow a big hole in the fourth wall if you do that". Meaning that you think you can take whatever class features you want, so long as you don't skip any steps on the class abilities by level tables, and the ensuing abomination of a character should be mutely accepted as normal both in-character and at the table.
That's not what it means at all, so stop putting words in my mouth.

But as long as you're on that tangent, why should the character be regarded as an "abomination"?

Well, in-character, "abomination" might be an accurate description of the character, but that would be because of the concept, not because of the particular classes that the character build includes (which the characters obviously have no concept of). My character isn't regarded with suspicion because he's a Wizard /Cleric/Pale Master/True Necromancer/Mystic Theurge, he's regarded with suspicion because he's a creepy weirdo who prays to vile gods, turns his slain enemies into zombies, and has a freaky skeleton arm. That would be something that many people, in-universe, would call an "abomination".

On the other hand, my Fighter/Monk/Duelist/Kensai/Blade Dancer would be seen as just another swordsman, if one with a particularly elusive fighting style.

As an aside, I haven't actually made either of those builds; they're just examples off the top of my head. Couldn't say offhand how effective the combinations would actually be.

As for out-of-character, anyone who seriously calls a D&D character an "abomination" because they can't immediately divine the concept just by looking at the class list is projecting their own issues. They're the one with the problem.

If you don't understand what someone is going for with their particular selection of classes? Try asking. And kindly refrain from assuming the worst, or dismissing their answer because you don't like it.

Well, I reject the notion that you can take whatever mechanical advantages you want and simply say that you're doing something else. The mechanics should stem from the ideas, not vice versa.
You say that as if those things conflict, which they don't. The mechanics do stem from the ideas. I start with an idea for a character concept, and to support that concept I select the mechanics that most closely represent the things that concept is supposed to be able to do. That I discard the "default" ideas commonly associated with those mechanics is not a bad thing.

If we extend that reasoning to, say, equipment, it falls apart. One cannot use a greatsword mechanically and claim that it's your accountant (who happens to be a Warblade 10/Barbarian 1/Frenzied Berserker 2/Cloistered Cleric 7) using a quill.
Why not? A giant weaponized quill is basically just Martial Arts and Crafts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartialArtsAndCrafts); probably not appropriate for a grim-n-gritty low-fantasy campaign, but perfectly viable for a lighthearted one. And what's wrong with those classes, exactly? I thought of three perfectly good concepts for which that combination would work before I finished typing this sentence. And I'm a fast typist.

I also reject the notion that restricting a prestige class to a particular organization automatically blows a hole in the fourth wall. It makes sense that, say, a potent fighting style or magical technique could be restricted to a single fighting school or mage's organization, or to the teachings of a single isolated people in the mountains somewhere.Information doesn't flow as freely in a fantasy medieval culture as it does in ours. Things can be easily hidden, and many people, having developed a new technique for golem forging or flawless parrying or whatever, are unlikely to share it with everyone, lest their enemies start using their hard-earned secrets.

You assume a lot here. If the Order Of Whatever can develop a particular technique for golem forging or flawless parrying, then so can someone else. My character can be someone who developed his own technique, completely independently of those guys. Or he could be a former member who left after learning the fundamentals and continued to self-train, leading him to learn techniques that may be quite different from the Order's thematically, but mechanically identical. He could be a spy who stole their techniques. An outsider who was trained in secret by a rogue member of the Order. A member of an entirely different order that developed its own technique in parallel. All concepts equally as valid as "member of the Order".

But if you say that's not allowed, that only loyal and faithful members of the Order could possibly learn how to make golems or parry blows with unusual skill or whatever, then that's your privilege as a DM, but make no mistake that you're using DM fiat to hold perfectly good character concepts hostage to your own arbitrary ideas of what your players "should" play and protect the special unique specialness of your Order. That's a significant hole in the fourth wall, because it's making your setting look less like a believable world and more like a predetermined story you want to protect.

The characters don't have to know about class levels to know that some people cast druid spells and some people cast wizard spells; they similarly don't have to know about the rules to know that some wizards have techniques separate from others, and those wizards all come from X place.
They can "know" that, sure. But they don't need to be right about it.

"Wow, cool soap golem! What's it like living at the Tower of Fightclubistan?"

"I wouldn't know. I'm from Wisconsonia, and this is a cheese golem. I am given to understand that the principle is similar, however."

Now, I will admit that this is not necessarily true of all such techniques, and that particular prestige classes and the like could find their way into becoming more widespread, but it cannot be accepted as a given that any fighter who wants to become a Brilliant Kazoo-Warrior of Hila can.

What cannot be accepted as a given (or at least, as reasonable) is that only Brilliant Kazoo-Warriors of Hila can learn to fight with kazoos. Just because that's what the PrC is called doesn't obligate me to follow that exact concept. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to be a Magnificent Kazoo-Fighter of Riven. Or a Bombastic Buzzcutter. Or just some guy who's crazy enough to charge into battles with a kazoo and inexplicably talented/lucky enough to make it work.

If I was just some min-maxer looking to get as much power as possible without regard for roleplay, I wouldn't dip anything at all. I'd just pick a Tier 1 caster class and ride it all the way up to 20. I jump through these multiclass hoops because I am a roleplayer and I want to portray the role I'm playing as accurately as possible. And any claim to the contrary is an attempt to argue with me about what I am thinking. Surely you can see why that is going to be a losing proposition?

VoxRationis

2014-03-14, 12:33 AM

Why not? A giant weaponized quill is basically just Martial Arts and Crafts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartialArtsAndCrafts); probably not appropriate for a grim-n-gritty low-fantasy campaign, but perfectly viable for a lighthearted one. And what's wrong with those classes, exactly? I thought of three perfectly good concepts for which that combination would work before I finished typing this sentence. And I'm a fast typist.

If you're doing things like this, you should play Toon or whatever it's called, not D&D.

You assume a lot here. If the Order Of Whatever can develop a particular technique for golem forging or flawless parrying, then so can someone else. My character can be someone who developed his own technique, completely independently of those guys. Or he could be a former member who left after learning the fundamentals and continued to self-train from, leading him to learn techniques that may be quite different from the Order's thematically, but mechanically identical. He could be a spy who stole their techniques. An outsider who was trained in secret by a rogue member of the Order. A member of an entirely different order that developed its own technique in parallel. All concepts equally as valid as "member of the Order".

But if you say that's not allowed, that only loyal and faithful members of the Order could possibly learn how to make golems or parry blows with unusual skill or whatever, then that's your privilege as a DM, but make no mistake that you're using DM fiat to hold perfectly good character concepts hostage to your own arbitrary ideas of what your players "should" play and protect the special unique specialness of your Order. That's a significant hole in the fourth wall, just as if you used giant invisible walls to funnel the players to the dungeon you want them to explore.

Actually, this is a good argument. I admit that I over-simplified the situation for the sake of rhetorical brevity. There are many ways in-character one could gain access to the abilities of a prestige class without being a member of an organization associated with that class (though I have my doubts about a single person working independently being able to replicate the techniques of entire organizations refining those techniques over generations). However, those situations would be the exception, and the steps taken on that road would be worthy of adventures in and of themselves. You should role-play finding that rogue agent or your novice growing disillusioned and leaving the Order. If you're a spy, you should definitely have to role-play the deep-immersion infiltration that allowed you to copy their techniques in a field-applicable way without anyone noticing (observing a fighting style once is not enough to copy it, obviously).

eggynack

2014-03-14, 12:41 AM

Actually, this is a good argument. I admit that I over-simplified the situation for the sake of rhetorical brevity. There are many ways in-character one could gain access to the abilities of a prestige class without being a member of an organization associated with that class (though I have my doubts about a single person working independently being able to replicate the techniques of entire organizations refining those techniques over generations). However, those situations would be the exception, and the steps taken on that road would be worthy of adventures in and of themselves. You should role-play finding that rogue agent or your novice growing disillusioned and leaving the Order. If you're a spy, you should definitely have to role-play the deep-immersion infiltration that allowed you to copy their techniques in a field-applicable way without anyone noticing (observing a fighting style once is not enough to copy it, obviously).
I don't see why there necessarily has to be a thing at all. Sure, if you want your character to have some organizational ties, or some specific adventure, go ahead and do that, but I don't think that not doing that should necessarily be the exception. Sometimes you can just say, "I don't like how this druid tastes. It needs more... summoning," and you toss on four levels of moonspeaker, or you could say, "I've gotten a cool hyper-good vibe going here. Seems like the place for some lion of Talisid."

Not everything has to be some crazy adventure or some big ordeal. Sometimes you can just decide what you want your character to be capable of, and find the abilities that feel right. Then, entirely independent of your prestige classes, you can go on some crazy roadtrip for a massive diamond, or join a monastery, or be a rogue agent. I don't think that the two should necessarily be tied together. It just feels so constraining to do it like that.

VoxRationis

2014-03-14, 12:54 AM

That's not what it means at all, so stop putting words in my mouth.

As for out-of-character, anyone who seriously calls a D&D character an "abomination" because they can't immediately divine the concept just by looking at the class list is projecting their own issues. They're the one with the problem.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. My objection does not come from a lack of ability to discern build intent. My objection comes from the creature you've created, who liberally uses techniques and has the abilities of entities and organizations that are wildly inappropriate contextually, or may not even exist in the campaign setting. If you expect your DM to quietly nod when he runs a campaign in Eberron and you walk in with a male elf Rashemen witch (I forget exactly what the class is called), you are blessed with living in a world where those surrounding you are as incapable of responding to your motivations as the monsters in a TO setting.

You say that as if those things conflict, which they don't. The mechanics do stem from the ideas. I start with an idea for a character concept, and to support that concept I select the mechanics that most closely represent the things that concept is supposed to be able to do. That I discard the "default" ideas commonly associated with those mechanics is not a bad thing.

If I was just some min-maxer looking to get as much power as possible without regard for roleplay, I wouldn't dip anything at all. I'd just pick a Tier 1 caster class and ride it all the way up to 20. I jump through these multiclass hoops because I am a roleplayer and I want to portray the role I'm playing as accurately as possible. And any claim to the contrary is an attempt to argue with me about what I am thinking. Surely you can see why that is going to be a losing proposition?

When I referred to the ideas, I meant "My character is a warrior from X place, a skilled swordsman roaming in search of his brother," not "My character is really good at Attacks of Opportunity." To take the greatsword example:
"I am playing a mercenary fighter who's based on the Landsknecht soldiers of Germany"
vs.
"I want my fighter to do 2d6+bonuses damage per hit and have a 19-20 crit range."

eggynack

2014-03-14, 01:06 AM

When I referred to the ideas, I meant "My character is a warrior from X place, a skilled swordsman roaming in search of his brother," not "My character is really good at Attacks of Opportunity."
Why does the fact that you're a warrior from some place in search of his brother have to be represented mechanically at all? The AoO part seems like the part you'd want to represent mechanically, and that's where you use prestige classes that are good at AoO's. What I'm saying is, the mechanical crunch and the fluffy flavor can be mostly unrelated. In particular, within that character concept, the only thing I would represent mechanically would be, "swordsman," or maybe, "skilled swordsman." After that, I can do pretty much anything.

TheIronGolem

2014-03-14, 01:09 AM

If you're doing things like this, you should play Toon or whatever it's called, not D&D.
No, I shouldn't. Toon is a very rules-light system, and just because the weapon idea is fanciful doesn't mean I can't execute it in a crunch-heavy system like D&D. In fact, doing so with a straight face is a fair bit of the novelty: "Behold, the pen truly IS mightier than the sword!" <sunders orc chieftan's weapon with unreasonably large quill>

Actually, this is a good argument. I admit that I over-simplified the situation for the sake of rhetorical brevity. There are many ways in-character one could gain access to the abilities of a prestige class without being a member of an organization associated with that class (though I have my doubts about a single person working independently being able to replicate the techniques of entire organizations refining those techniques over generations). However, those situations would be the exception...
Adventurers tend to be exceptional people.

...and the steps taken on that road would be worthy of adventures in and of themselves. You should role-play finding that rogue agent or your novice growing disillusioned and leaving the Order. If you're a spy, you should definitely have to role-play the deep-immersion infiltration that allowed you to copy their techniques in a field-applicable way without anyone noticing (observing a fighting style once is not enough to copy it, obviously).

Unless this already happened before the game started; not all campaigns begin at first level.

Also, while these are obviously perfectly good plot hooks, none of them are necessarily relevant to the rest of the party, and they may not be interested in a side-quest that's all about me (and even less interested in sitting by while I monopolize the DM's time with a solo mission). If there's a main quest that everyone else wants to get on with, I should be able to handwave it as something that happens during downtime. It's not cool to make someone choose between fulfilling their concept or not holding up the rest of the party, even unintentionally.

VoxRationis

2014-03-14, 01:12 AM

Why does the fact that you're a warrior from some place in search of his brother have to be represented mechanically at all? The AoO part seems like the part you'd want to represent mechanically, and that's where you use prestige classes that are good at AoO's. What I'm saying is, the mechanical crunch and the fluffy flavor can be mostly unrelated. In particular, within that character concept, the only thing I would represent mechanically would be, "swordsman," or maybe, "skilled swordsman." After that, I can do pretty much anything.

It's the "X place" and "warrior" which really are important to represent mechanically; I just didn't feel like giving a specific example of a place at the time (the Landsknecht example a little later was edited in). A place of origin defines available technologies, social status, fighting styles... A lot, simply put.

Khatoblepas

2014-03-14, 01:14 AM

If you're doing things like this, you should play Toon or whatever it's called, not D&D.

Or you could use D&D, because by nature it's an imagination game, and if someone wants a weaponised quill, all the more power to them, I'd totally let them have one if I ran a game.

You could even have an enchanted quill that writes in the air and damages folks that it's ink touches. He might even have other quills or inks he can use to form other weaponlike calligraphy. Or he might be wielding a Roc's feather from a bird he slew himself, sharp as steel and incredibly dangerous.

With a little imagination, you could justify anything in D&D. Anything.

squiggit

2014-03-14, 01:15 AM

I think Pathfinder "fixed" this "problem" somewhat. The base classes have been changed so that they are meaningful all the way through level 20, and prestige classes, while powerful, are more for taking your character in a different direction than just making them better.

Even before Pathfinder, whether you wanted to PrC depended on your class. If you were a sorcerer, then you were shooting yourself in the foot if you DIDN'T take a PrC. On the other hand, if you were an artificer, it was a really bad idea to take a PrC usually, except maybe for those last five levels.

I actually feel like Pathfinder goes a bit too far in the other direction. Making most classes awesome to stick through for 1-20 is definitely a good thing, but at the same time the way pathfinder does things tends to make dipping kind of lame in general. Which in turn makes it feel like it's a bit harder to differentiate yourself if you're playing a class with limited options. Making base classes solid and making characters that have one to five levels in half a dozen classes less dominant are both good things.. but I feel like Pathfinder has too many instances where dipping ends up being a trap or where the only good options are things that were more or less tailor made for that base class anyways.

eggynack

2014-03-14, 01:21 AM

It's the "X place" and "warrior" which really are important to represent mechanically; I just didn't feel like giving a specific example of a place at the time (the Landsknecht example a little later was edited in). A place of origin defines available technologies, social status, fighting styles... A lot, simply put.
It can, if you want. I'm just not sure that it needs to, and for anything that a place would define in a mechanical way, I'd probably just define that with mechanics. So, if a given culture emphasizes defense and protection in their style, that's when you might toss out that AoO build from earlier. If they emphasize pure offense, well, then you might consider something like a chargebarian, maybe going into frenzied berserker. There doesn't necessarily need to be some organizational tie or road trip involved.

Edit: Basically, I'm saying that you can represent things that you want to represent in whatever way you want to represent them. Just don't expect everyone to feel as constrained by the fluff of prestige classes as you are.

Coidzor

2014-03-14, 01:23 AM

Or you could use D&D, because by nature it's an imagination game, and if someone wants a weaponised quill, all the more power to them, I'd totally let them have one if I ran a game.

You could even have an enchanted quill that writes in the air and damages folks that it's ink touches. He might even have other quills or inks he can use to form other weaponlike calligraphy. Or he might be wielding a Roc's feather from a bird he slew himself, sharp as steel and incredibly dangerous.

With a little imagination, you could justify anything in D&D. Anything.

It did give us Fistbeard Beardfist and Axebeak Beakaxe.

Terazul

2014-03-14, 01:25 AM

It did give us Fistbeard Beardfist and Axebeak Beakaxe.

And don't forget Bearington Bearman the Bearbearian.

TheIronGolem

2014-03-14, 02:16 AM

Now you're putting words in my mouth. My objection does not come from a lack of ability to discern build intent.
Doesn't it? You've asserted from the beginning that I must be "blatantly min-maxing" because you personally don't see how my dipping/combining classes could be justified. Although I'm starting to suspect that it's less of an inability and more of a refusal.

My objection comes from the creature you've created, who liberally uses techniques and has the abilities of entities and organizations that are wildly inappropriate contextually, or may not even exist in the campaign setting.
They don't need to be the abilities of any particular entities or organizations, though. That's fluff, and while fluff is important, it's also mutable. Concept is king here, and I make the fluff serve it.

If you expect your DM to quietly nod when he runs a campaign in Eberron and you walk in with a male elf Rashemen witch (I forget exactly what the class is called), you are blessed with living in a world where those surrounding you are as incapable of responding to your motivations as the monsters in a TO setting.
I don't know what a Rashemen is, but I am confident that whatever class you're referring to, there's a perfectly good way to refluff it for Eberron.

And as it happens, I have done something along those lines. I played a Warforged Warlock in a 3.5 Forgotten Realms game.

Why Warforged, and why Warlock? Because the idea I started with was "I'd like to make a fantasy equivalent of a Battle Droid".

So how do you do that? Well, the fantasy version of a robot is a golem, obviously. And what's the easiest way to play a golem in D&D? Warforged, of course.

Next, we put the Battle into the Battle Droid. I'm looking for PEW PEW LASER HANDS here, so how can I do that in D&D? Magic Missile? Eh, it's okay, but I can do better. Aha - Eldritch Blast! Ranged touch attack, damage goes up with level, you can gain abilities that add rider effects and change the damage type, which can represent different "firing modes". Nice. You also get some at-will spells, so I'll pick some that roughly correspond to things a robot would have...hey, See The Unseen! Darkvision and see invisible stuff! MAGIC ROBOT THERMAL VISION, YO! And so on.

Yes, I know the book says Warlocks get their powers from making deals with demons and such. That's fine for some warlocks, but this one gets his powers from the fact that he's a PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT. He's not a "warlock" at all, as far as the setting is concerned.

Now add some Fighter to shore up the combat values and score some feats for enhancing ranged attacks, and we're good.

Meanwhile, I'm also figuring out how this golem came to be and what he's like, since I don't have Eberron history to fall back on. I already know I don't want to be some Bender or HK-47 wannabe spouting off about "meatbags", and I'm not really interested in the "gosh I sure wish I was a Real Boy" angle either. But hey - a golem who has a childlike curiosity about the world around him as a counterpoint to all this deadly eldritch weaponry he's packing? Now that's something. What I wound up with is that he's not "really" a golem, but rather an extradimensional being who made contact with a wizard. The wizard convinced him to allow himself to be bound into this golem that he built, so that he could use it to explore the world. Of course, it turns out the wizard is really just using him as the prototype for MAGIC LASER ROBOT ARMY, so he escapes, meets up with a friendly ranger, and now it's adventure time. Come on, grab your friends.

That was several years ago. Now that Pathfinder is my usual game of choice, I'd redo the character as a straight Soulknife, using the Soulbolt archetype (and maybe Gifted Blade to replicate those utility powers). That works better than Warlock/Fighter, not because it's simpler or mechanically superior (although it is both of those things), but because it's a set of abilities that better fulfill the concept.

And while that example is all with base classes, there's no reason whatsoever why the same process can't apply to PrC's too.

When I referred to the ideas, I meant "My character is a warrior from X place, a skilled swordsman roaming in search of his brother," not "My character is really good at Attacks of Opportunity." To take the greatsword example:
"I am playing a mercenary fighter who's based on the Landsknecht soldiers of Germany"
vs.
"I want my fighter to do 2d6+bonuses damage per hit and have a 19-20 crit range."
Me too. I start with "swordsman" or some variant thereof, figure out how exactly I see this guy fighting in my mind (there are, after all, many kinds of "swordsman"), then go about picking the classes, feats, PrC's and whatnot that best fit that idea. That's what I've been talking about this entire time.

Troacctid

2014-03-14, 03:06 AM

Ooh, battle droid, that's a good one. I love refluffed warlocks... the class lends itself really well to it. I've done a mad scientist with all the invocations flavored as gadgets (blaster ray, jet pack, etc.), and another that was a superhero with heat vision, ice breath, and so on. Good times. :smallsmile:

Particle_Man

2014-03-14, 09:13 AM

The other thought I have about prestige classes is that, while they can be stripped of flavour (and re-flavoured) I see that as more the DMs perogative when the DM is world-building and deciding what organizations exist in that game world.

So I would be ok with a DM saying "Sapphire Hierarchs are actually numerous and good instead of lawful" but I would be less so with a player saying "I'm playing a Sapphire Hierarch only mine is good instead of lawful and I can use my commune ability by praying in any town or city, because my Sapphire Hierarch variant religion is actually common"

sleepyphoenixx

2014-03-14, 09:27 AM

So I would be ok with a DM saying "Sapphire Hierarchs are actually numerous and good instead of lawful" but I would be less so with a player saying "I'm playing a Sapphire Hierarch only mine is good instead of lawful and I can use my commune ability by praying in any town or city, because my Sapphire Hierarch variant religion is actually common"

That's not a very good example considering that the ability is limited to 3/level or 1/month anyway. You don't even get out of paying the XP for the hassle. I doubt any party is going to bother travelling to who knows where just to get a 5th level spell (even if the Sapphire Hierarch himself couldn't just cast it normally the next day at the latest).

This is one ability where the fluff is a nice piece of worldbuilding but utterly impractical and useless in actual play.
The ability might as well not exist for all the good it does a character. If a player wants it refluffed to a different alignment or entity, go ahead. It won't make any difference, ever.

Other than that it's a fairly basic theurge class.
You get a little extra compared to a Mystic Theurge but then arcane casting is generally more powerful and versatile than incarnum so it balances out.
And that's not even considering that most builds don't need more than a 2 level dip in incarnum anyway and would be better served, from a mechanical PoV, to take a different PrC to advance their divine casting. You don't even get additional Chakra Binds so adjusting the fluff to fit the players concept is the least you can do.
It's certainly not a min-max choice.

skyth

2014-03-14, 10:10 AM

"I am playing a mercenary fighter who's based on the Landsknecht soldiers of Germany"
vs.
"I want my fighter to do 2d6+bonuses damage per hit and have a 19-20 crit range."

You act as if one is inherrently superior to the other. This is dipping into the WrongBadFun category of complaints.

VoxRationis

2014-03-14, 10:16 AM

Doesn't it? You've asserted from the beginning that I must be "blatantly min-maxing" because you personally don't see how my dipping/combining classes could be justified. Although I'm starting to suspect that it's less of an inability and more of a refusal.

And as it happens, I have done something along those lines. I played a Warforged Warlock in a 3.5 Forgotten Realms game.

Why Warforged, and why Warlock? Because the idea I started with was "I'd like to make a fantasy equivalent of a Battle Droid".

So how do you do that? Well, the fantasy version of a robot is a golem, obviously. And what's the easiest way to play a golem in D&D? Warforged, of course.

Next, we put the Battle into the Battle Droid. I'm looking for PEW PEW LASER HANDS here, so how can I do that in D&D? Magic Missile? Eh, it's okay, but I can do better. Aha - Eldritch Blast! Ranged touch attack, damage goes up with level, you can gain abilities that add rider effects and change the damage type, which can represent different "firing modes". Nice. You also get some at-will spells, so I'll pick some that roughly correspond to things a robot would have...hey, See The Unseen! Darkvision and see invisible stuff! MAGIC ROBOT THERMAL VISION, YO! And so on.

Yes, I know the book says Warlocks get their powers from making deals with demons and such. That's fine for some warlocks, but this one gets his powers from the fact that he's a PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT. He's not a "warlock" at all, as far as the setting is concerned.

So I see... I got it wrong. It's not that you favor mechanical advantage over character concept, but that you refuse to acknowledge what is and what is not an appropriate character concept for a setting, or even a genre. Play Star Wars if you want to play a battle droid. D&D is for wizards and questing knights, or maybe rakish thieves, not "PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT"s. This problem is endemic in the later-period 3.5 metagame and beyond my strength to address. I'll go get Gandalf, see if he can help.

eggynack

2014-03-14, 10:24 AM

So I see... I got it wrong. It's not that you favor mechanical advantage over character concept, but that you refuse to acknowledge what is and what is not an appropriate character concept for a setting, or even a genre. Play Star Wars if you want to play a battle droid. D&D is for wizards and questing knights, or maybe rakish thieves, not "PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT"s. This problem is endemic in the later-period 3.5 metagame and beyond my strength to address. I'll go get Gandalf, see if he can help.
That really doesn't feel like what he said. You can just replace battle-droid with the aforementioned summoning focused druid, and replace changing the things he listed to changing the fluff of moonspeaker, as well as the bunch of setting specific feats that druids are party to. It has very little to do with the character fitting or not fitting within the context of the game as a whole. And, again, I don't think it's up to you to decide what is and isn't appropriate for this game. The game absolutely supports magic laser robots, even without much in the way of a refluff, so maybe your understanding of the game's setting and genre isn't as complete as you think it is.

Khatoblepas

2014-03-14, 10:27 AM

So I see... I got it wrong. It's not that you favor mechanical advantage over character concept, but that you refuse to acknowledge what is and what is not an appropriate character concept for a setting, or even a genre. Play Star Wars if you want to play a battle droid. D&D is for wizards and questing knights, or maybe rakish thieves, not "PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT"s. This problem is endemic in the later-period 3.5 metagame and beyond my strength to address. I'll go get Gandalf, see if he can help.

Excuse me? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_to_the_Barrier_Peaks)

There have been laser robots and future guns and aliens in D&D since OD&D. There are entire books of Laser Golems and Expies of science fiction stuff.

Don't you pull "old was purer", people have been mixing western fantasy with sci fi and other influences since the beginning.

Edit: Also, Spelljammer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelljammer) Now tell me that magic laser robots are too outlandish for D&D.

georgie_leech

2014-03-14, 10:27 AM

So I see... I got it wrong. It's not that you favor mechanical advantage over character concept, but that you refuse to acknowledge what is and what is not an appropriate character concept for a setting, or even a genre. Play Star Wars if you want to play a battle droid. D&D is for wizards and questing knights, or maybe rakish thieves, not "PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT"s. This problem is endemic in the later-period 3.5 metagame and beyond my strength to address. I'll go get Gandalf, see if he can help.

For someone playing a game where an old man can fling bat poop at an enemy and cause massive fiery death, you seem to be taking this way too seriously. :smallconfused:

The way he plays his games has no bearing on how you play yours. Him deciding to play a battle droid has as much affect on your rakish thieves as the relative orbital positions of Europa and Alpha Centauri. Why on Earth do you have a problem with that?

squiggit

2014-03-14, 10:32 AM

but that you refuse to acknowledge what is and what is not an appropriate character concept for a setting, or even a genre.
It's not about "refusing to acknowledge" anything. It's about not arbitrarily stifling a player's creativity because the DM views that his way is the only right way to play. If you're the sort of person that likes to smash down creative energy that doesn't conform to your own sense of what is "correct", then that's fine I suppose.

D&D is for wizards and questing knights, or maybe rakish thieves, not "PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT"s.

I take it you don't like Eberron then.

VoxRationis

2014-03-14, 10:39 AM

For someone playing a game where an old man can fling bat poop at an enemy and cause massive fiery death, you seem to be taking this way too seriously. :smallconfused:

The way he plays his games has no bearing on how you play yours. Him deciding to play a battle droid has as much affect on your rakish thieves as the relative orbital positions of Europa and Alpha Centauri. Why on Earth do you have a problem with that?

Hence why I said "beyond my strength" to change. I'm not going to be able to convince him that his character concepts are better in an improv comedy sketch than in a D&D game, so I'm not going to continue to try.

eggynack

2014-03-14, 10:41 AM

Hence why I said "beyond my strength" to change. I'm not going to be able to convince him that his character concepts are better in an improv comedy sketch than in a D&D game, so I'm not going to continue to try.
Except that the implication here, by saying that it's something that one of greater strength could convince him of, is that you're somehow correct. And you're not. His character could fit into an improv comedy sketch, but it could also easily fit into a D&D game. The same could be said of your mighty swordsman.

Killer Angel

2014-03-14, 10:42 AM

I take it you don't like Eberron then.

Not even Planescape. Y'know, Mechanus.

georgie_leech

2014-03-14, 10:42 AM

Hence why I said "beyond my strength" to change. I'm not going to be able to convince him that his character concepts are better in an improv comedy sketch than in a D&D game, so I'm not going to continue to try.

Perhaps I should leave well enough alone, but I find I can't drop this this morning. Why should you try in the first place? What do you possibly gain by telling him the way he plays is wrong? I've no objection to how you play; I've an objection to anyone trying to convince strangers that their way of playing the game is wrong.

Red Fel

2014-03-14, 10:56 AM

Perhaps I should leave well enough alone, but I find I can't drop this this morning. Why should you try in the first place? What do you possibly gain by telling him the way he plays is wrong? I've no objection to how you play; I've an objection to anyone trying to convince strangers that their way of playing the game is wrong.

But... But... Somebody is wrong! On the internet! This has to be rectified! Truth for its own sake!

Seriously, I know it's hardly currency, but Vox lost credibility with me the moment he started saying what D&D is and isn't about.

Particle_Man

2014-03-14, 10:57 AM

That's not a very good example considering that the ability is limited to 3/level or 1/month anyway. You don't even get out of paying the XP for the hassle. I doubt any party is going to bother travelling to who knows where just to get a 5th level spell (even if the Sapphire Hierarch himself couldn't just cast it normally the next day at the latest).

This is one ability where the fluff is a nice piece of worldbuilding but utterly impractical and useless in actual play.
The ability might as well not exist for all the good it does a character. If a player wants it refluffed to a different alignment or entity, go ahead. It won't make any difference, ever.

Other than that it's a fairly basic theurge class.
You get a little extra compared to a Mystic Theurge but then arcane casting is generally more powerful and versatile than incarnum so it balances out.
And that's not even considering that most builds don't need more than a 2 level dip in incarnum anyway and would be better served, from a mechanical PoV, to take a different PrC to advance their divine casting. You don't even get additional Chakra Binds so adjusting the fluff to fit the players concept is the least you can do.
It's certainly not a min-max choice.

a) The advantage I have heard is that when you need Commune, you profit by spamming it a lot in a short period of time.

b) If you don't like my specific example, substitute another one. My principle stands - I prefer the DM to control the reflavouring of prestige classes rather than players.

TheIronGolem

2014-03-14, 11:08 AM

So I see... I got it wrong.
You've gotten it wrong every step of the way, yes.

It's not that you favor mechanical advantage over character concept
Which is what I've been explicitly spelling out to you this entire time. Glad to see you've caught up.

but that you refuse to acknowledge what is and what is not an appropriate character concept for a setting, or even a genre.
What I refuse to acknowledge is your authority (or, for that matter, ability) to determine what character concept is or isn't appropriate for the game I'm playing. My DM for that game, who is almost certainly a bigger Forgotten Realms nerd than anyone who's posted in this thread so far, thought it was awesome.

Play Star Wars if you want to play a battle droid. D&D is for wizards and questing knights, or maybe rakish thieves, not "PEW PEW MAGIC LASER ROBOT"s. This problem is endemic in the later-period 3.5 metagame and beyond my strength to address. I'll go get Gandalf, see if he can help.

I normally don't use this term, but this is pretty much the definition of badwrongfun. You're the one with the problem here.

You also seem to be the only person missing the fact that the "PEW PEW" stuff is just a tongue-in-cheek way of summing up the build, not a literal representation of how the character acts.

Hence why I said "beyond my strength" to change. I'm not going to be able to convince him that his character concepts are better in an improv comedy sketch than in a D&D game, so I'm not going to continue to try.
The reason you won't be able to convince me of that is because the facts don't support it.

amalcon

2014-03-14, 11:14 AM

My main problem with prestige classes is that they are fundamentally trying to solve a bunch of different problems, each of which on its own is better solved in some other way.

There are prestige classes that try to give some additional flavor and unity to an organization. This sort of thing is better handled by one or more feats. Consider an organization PrC like Assassin. This class is basically a Rogue with spells plus Poison Use, Death Attack, and Hide in Plain Sight. Three of those are sensible things for assassins' guild members to have by default, but the spells make no sense in that context. Make Poison Use a feat, make a Death Attack feat that requires it, and make a high-level Hide in Plain Sight feat (after all, a level 2 wand can accomplish more or less the same thing). This is much better than a PrC because it's more modular: similar organizations can borrow the same feats, and you don't force every assassin to have spells.

There are prestige classes that try to make some otherwise mechanically terrible character concept viable, like Mystic Theurge. This is better done with a base class, basically because that way the character doesn't need to be mechanically terrible before qualifying for the class.

Also, there are prestige classes that try to fix flaws in other classes. The best SRD example here is the Blackguard, solving the problems of 1) How there's no evil Paladin-equivalent, and 2) What to do with a Paladin that turns evil. The better approach here is to just fix the flaws in the other classes (e.g. the Paladin of Tyrrany variant plus retraining rules).

There are prestige classes that are simply adjustments on the base classes that lead into them, generally specializing more or exploring one aspect more fully, but occasionally discarding something in exchange for more general boosts. Thaumaturgist is the DMG example here. No surprise here, the better approaches to this are kits (a la second edition) and ACFs. These approaches are better because first they potentially start working at lower levels, and second the rules for that sort of thing are simpler.

There are prestige classes that exist to give access to rare abilities, like Archmage. I don't see a particular reason why we need a special class just to hand out a rare ability. Just make it a feat, spell, kit, or ACF, and make a note that it's rare.

The only things remaining are transformational prestige classes (Dragon Disciple). Transformational classes are actually one of the things PrCs could do better than other possibilities. Unfortunately, the transformational classes that exist in 3.5 are mechanically terrible. The clearly best one is Fiend-Blooded from Heroes of Horror, which has the singular distinction of only making characters that take it slightly weaker.

That being said, prestige classes are by and large the mechanism that published 3.5 gives us to do these things. If you're playing 3.5, and you want to do one of these things, prestige classes are better than just giving up on doing these things. Homebrewing a better solution will often lead to better results, but that can be labor intensive.

sleepyphoenixx

2014-03-14, 11:19 AM

a) The advantage I have heard is that when you need Commune, you profit by spamming it a lot in a short period of time.

b) If you don't like my specific example, substitute another one. My principle stands - I prefer the DM to control the reflavouring of prestige classes rather than players.

Sorry, i could have made the point clearer. What i meant to illustrate is that the fluff is, ultimately, just an example. Of course you don't let the players decide the fluff of the campaign alone. That's what DM approval is for.
So said player wants to play a divine/incarnum theurge. What the player can do is strip the official fluff and fit the mechanics into his character concept, then sit down with the DM and figure out a fluff that fits into the campaign setting in question.

In the case of the sapphire hierarch it could just as well be a society of tribal shamans communing with the Great Tree that is the center of their religion, a cult worshipping a sentient crystal that fell from space or whatever else fits into the setting.
Maybe it's just a single guy who figured out how to combine two seperate systems of using supernatural energy and he communes by meditating on the principles of the multiverse.
None of those concepts are inherently lawful, so that's a fluff requirement that can be changed as needed imo. It makes no difference as long as the same character resources are expended in achieving it.

There is nothing inherently unbalancing or overpowering about multiclassing and dipping. Wether a build is suitable for the powerlevel of a campaign is not a matter of the number of classes it has.
A character concept is also not defined by its classes. A character isn't "John the Cleric/Prestige Paladin/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator" it's "John, Champion of (God) and Swordmaster".

Terazul

2014-03-14, 11:19 AM

But... But... Somebody is wrong! On the internet! This has to be rectified! Truth for its own sake!

Seriously, I know it's hardly currency, but Vox lost credibility with me the moment he started saying what D&D is and isn't about.

Seriously, in a world where the entire party can consist of your normally nature-faring ranger friend is a gnome who has traded away all his nature skills (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm) to be instead be great as a hit-man versus a rival mafia, where a few generations back you can trace your heritage to a demon or angel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/planetouched.htm) and you spend your time making deals with forgotten gods (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2942.0), while the bug guy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/dromite.htm) instead summons the ambient energy of souls into superpowers (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=583.0), and today you are all fighting against a golem made out of pizza (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20010413a) nearly all right out of the box, I can never understand people who go "D&D is for this" or "D&D is not for this" when there is already so much going on and you don't even have to look very far. And that's just picking a few races and slapping a class on them.

Usually the same types that say Psionics is too "sci-fi". Yeah, all those Greek words versus the Latin ones used in Arcane spells really puts us in the future. But that's another story.

...As far as the topic at hand, prestige classes are neat for adding a bit of "specialization" to a lot of characters. Usually because that's the only way to go about it, but still counts. Feat taxes, shoddy RP requirements, and organizations that don't actually do anything mechanically once you get in (I'm looking at you, Assassin) are a pain and should generally be ignored/discussed with your DM/players to work around. As 90% of the time, if you listed off the abilities level-by-level to someone with no context, you probably wouldn't hear any mess about "that doesn't fit the flavor of my setting". Barring transformational ones; I could understand not wanting your clerics suddenly becoming Dry Lichs or something.

Teron

2014-03-14, 11:27 AM

PaucaTerrorem

2014-03-14, 11:28 AM

Do you have a good IC reason? If so, you can if you don't push tillamook out of the market

Oregonian?

Aliek

2014-03-14, 11:31 AM

I'm pretty sure the sapphire hierarch example isn't refluffing as most would see. There's mechanical advantages, as irrelevant as they be in most cases.

Let's try a different one.

Mages of the Arcane Order.
Seems to have a pretty harsh relationship between fluff and crunch, but there's oh so many ways to do it other than just a guild of mages who has an arcane construct...

Perhaps it's an 'arcane bank' group that lends spells when needed, but you have to pay them back and then some? Or even an otherworldly entity who does so?

But thing is, refluffing shouldn't be done by yourself. Get it through your DM, in my experience most like it! Work with him so you can find a place for your fluff:crunch heavy PrC, or even disjoint them. I think Runescarred Berserker is an awesome PrC, but unless you're in the forgotten realms(and even then), there's no real reason it should be specific to the berserker lodges.

Person_Man

2014-03-14, 03:58 PM

This is why I enjoyed Saga approach, there weren't twelve millions prc, everytime someone new was added it was added to something already existing. (Except for that one new prc which I remember raising a stink).

That being said it's also why I prefer systems whitout classes at all.

But then again classes can be useful in clearly defining a concept. It may be more difficult to come up with a concept and make it work in a truly classeless system.

In addition to the fluff argument, classes really help new players. Want to hit stuff, play the Barbarian. You don't need to read 300 pages of rules, just 5-20 pages of base rules plus a couple pages of whatever the Barbarian can do.

I would also say that roleplaying games without classes have a very difficult time managing subsystems. For example, if the Wizard wants to use memorized spells but the Barbarian wants to use at-will Rage Powers, and the Druid wants to use limited time per day Wildshape forms and the Crusader wants to use randomly assigned maneuvers that can be recovered mid combat, how do you organize that into a cohesive system without classes? Each sub-system is too complex to fit in an individual ability, but not big enough to create a brand new roleplaying game out of it.

The above are a few of the reasons why 4E failed. They made the subsytem for each class exactly the same (at-will, encounter, daily) and gave each class a ridiculously long list of generic non-scaling abilities. So they weren't simultaneously more difficult for new players to pick up (who wants to read through 60 different powers for each class?) and felt like they all played the same way (if everyone gets the same stuff, why even use classes instead of a more generic system?)

georgie_leech

2014-03-14, 05:15 PM

The above are a few of the reasons why 4E failed. They made the subsytem for each class exactly the same (at-will, encounter, daily) and gave each class a ridiculously long list of generic non-scaling abilities. So they weren't simultaneously more difficult for new players to pick up (who wants to read through 60 different powers for each class?) and felt like they all played the same way (if everyone gets the same stuff, why even use classes instead of a more generic system?)

I dunno, I think the AEDU system hides a lot of the differences in play between classes. A skirmishing Rogue, who darts around the battlefield with multiple movement certainly plays a lot differently than a brutal Fighter, who wants to get into the thick of enemies and deny them movement and draw fire, who is different from the Wizard, who lays down zones and nukes from afar, who is different from the Warlord, one of the most powerful enablers in the game (properly built, a Warlord need never actually directly make an attack roll). The main difference between a Fighter and Barbarian in 3.5 is the Rage; in 4th, Barbarians have multiple different Rages, all of which set up various encounter-long buffs, and their Striker feature gives them additional attacks on crits and kills, while a Fighter generally wants powers that attack multiple targets to take advantage of their marking mechanic, and have class features that deny movement, punish shifters, and attack anyone they've marked that tries to attack an ally.

Incidentally, as the game went on the AEDU system was dropped completely; the Psionic classes get Augmentable At-wills and Dailies, and the Essentials line focuses on using boosts and other abilities to alter their Basic Attack. Then there's the Vampire Class (as distinct from Race, Feat, and Theme), which uses a weird Drain mechanic revolving around Healing surges.

The optics definitely could have been better, but there's a lot more variety to 4th than meets the eye. Maybe not as much as 3,5, but it's there.

VoxRationis

2014-03-16, 01:55 AM

Urgh. People like you are the reason the fantasy genre is 90% Tolkien knock-offs. Some of us think a genre defined by making stuff up can survive a little creativity.

A genre defined by entirely making things up, without any regard for genre appropriateness, would be "child's play." You know, the sort with no internal consistency, no reason for anything to be the way it is, no satisfactory plot arcs, the addition of abilities for characters without any previous reference to them or logical reason for them to have suddenly arisen, and pretty much everything that defines what is considered to be bad writing. If you want anything with a degree of seriousness, you can't just throw everything into the mix willy-nilly. Now, perhaps it is that you want to play Super Smash Brothers*, where everything fights everything regardless of genre or theme (besides, obviously, all being Nintendo characters), but I, when I imagine Dungeons and Dragons, imagine a role-playing game, which is dependent on there being a coherent situation to role-play in.

And as for people being angrily dismissive of my stated opinions on how one should play the game, you should all be a little more introspective on your own comments and the views inherent in the dialogue of much of these threads, which is absolutely permeated with implicit assumptions about play-style; things like "anything you can find in a book goes," "aim for mechanical advantage above all else," and "ignore rules that don't suit you, like multiclassing XP costs." You may not (always) say these things as overtly as I state my opinions, undoubtedly because I don't have the luxury of an army of Tippy-worshippers to whisper assent to all of my posts, but you make these things plenty obvious nonetheless.

*And mind you, it's not that I hate Super Smash Brothers, I play it when I have the opportunity; I just think that it's a crappy setting more or less by design.

eggynack

2014-03-16, 02:15 AM

And as for people being angrily dismissive of my stated opinions on how one should play the game, you should all be a little more introspective on your own comments and the views inherent in the dialogue of much of these threads, which is absolutely permeated with implicit assumptions about play-style; things like "anything you can find in a book goes," "aim for mechanical advantage above all else," and "ignore rules that don't suit you, like multiclassing XP costs." You may not (always) say these things as overtly as I state my opinions, undoubtedly because I don't have the luxury of an army of Tippy-worshippers to whisper assent to all of my posts, but you make these things plenty obvious nonetheless.
I don't think anyone here was dismissive of your opinions of how you should play your game. I think we're just dismissive of your opinions of how we should play our game. As we should be. Also, the multiclassing XP cost removal is less because it doesn't suit us, and more because it's silly and lowers the quantity of balance in the game. Most optimized builds couldn't care less about the rule.

Zalphon

2014-03-16, 02:30 AM

I like prestige classes. By that, I mean I prestige class as soon as I can. Base classes are simply too bland. It's like eating a flavorless oatmeal-like substance when you see a buffet of fruits, vegetables, all kinds of dishes from different cultures.

I like to pick and choose. Maybe I'll have some of this. A little of that. Oooo--I'd love to sprinkle that on top.

BrokenChord

2014-03-16, 03:25 AM

I... Tend to lower my own power when I use Prestige Classes :smallsigh: Because while I have absolutely nothing against optimizers, if I find myself trying to focus more on functionality than the "feeling" of the completed construct makes me feel bad. Sort of sick and drained of hope (which is totally overreacting for a game, but I overreact about everything). My last seven characters have all utilized dips or PrCs that didn't advance my primary abilities in an optimal way.

3.0 Bard/Blood Magus because I want to play a gothic musician who fuels the power and feeling of her music by cutting herself with her violin strings while she plays. See how THAT moved 'em to tears. 3.5 Wizard/Sacred Exorcist/Silver Pyromancer, because I want to play a religious wizard who burns Evil out of the world with his holy flames. (Hey, somebody complained earlier about there not being a Pyromancer that made flames stronger but weakened everything else)

Are there way better ways of doing these things approximately? Surely. But I don't really care about effectiveness when I build a character. And there should be no reason to fault me for that.

Nor should there be a reason to fault people who adhere to certain playstyles. People are different. And it's one of D&D's greatest qualities, imho, that people can have such wildly different ideas about the best way to play the game yet all those different people are still having fun. Or is someone going to start arguing that the point of games isn't to enjoy them now?

PersonMan

2014-03-16, 05:12 AM

which is absolutely permeated with implicit assumptions about play-style; things like "anything you can find in a book goes,"

Nope. Or do you skip all the 'ask your DM if', 'if you use X', 'if X is allowed' in these threads? Or the 'if X is an option, use it' bits?

"aim for mechanical advantage above all else,"

This permeates these posts just as much as "aim for being mechanically useless above all else" is in yours.

and "ignore rules that don't suit you, like multiclassing XP costs."

More like 'don't use horrible rules that are bad, negatively impact fun and make no sense IC either'.

Now, there are some assumptions here - namely, that unless housrules are mentioned, RAW is being used (which is kind of necessary to actually discuss rules) and that the DM is open to other options to help do things (i.e. if someone is playing a monk and feeling useless, that the DM will at least hear them out if they say 'can I switch to Unarmed Swordsage because I'm not having fun?'), but they aren't the ones you name.

Additionally, this is a community. What all communities have in common is that they're made up of individuals. Unlike you seem to think, we aren't a hive mind. People disagree on a lot of things (even the Tippyverse as a natural development out of the rules, which you seem to think is our holy book). In the end, though, people here have the tendency to put a fun game over things like pre-written fluff or keeping a very specific feel to a game.

You may not (always) say these things as overtly as I state my opinions, undoubtedly because I don't have the luxury of an army of Tippy-worshippers to whisper assent to all of my posts, but you make these things plenty obvious nonetheless.

Sorry, but you're not some kind of crusader against a horde of brainwashed no-roleplay optimizers who worship a single poster. Hate to burst your bubble there.

*And mind you, it's not that I hate Super Smash Brothers, I play it when I have the opportunity; I just think that it's a crappy setting more or less by design.

In some ways, yes, but in many situations one can include a surprising amount of themes, characters and stories by having a world that's similar to our own in one aspect.

Namely, being freaking gigantic.

DarkSonic1337

2014-03-16, 06:05 AM

Is it really silly to have a battledroid in a game with these? http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/467547-emperor_ren/547/36/clockwork_horror_display.jpg

http://www.fantasylands.net/varie-cose/ChainGolem.jpg

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_0408_1.jpg (seriously wtf is this?)

TuggyNE

2014-03-16, 06:28 AM

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_0408_1.jpg (seriously wtf is this?)

It's an intellect devourer of course, isn't it obvious? :smalltongue:

Killer Angel

2014-03-16, 09:55 AM

It's an intellect devourer of course, isn't it obvious? :smalltongue:

...and the designers, were the food! :smallbiggrin:

ericgrau

2014-03-16, 11:58 AM

I love new options... but I prefer base classes, ACFs and feats over prestige classes. Being almost strictly better than most base classes seems to force you to pick one to keep up if others take them. The pre-reqs often act as feat tax and skill tax to limit your build options even further. Especially if you have more than 1, you pretty much have to build your entire build around them. So mostly I'd say they're good for giving more options, but they aren't especially good. And some are borderline good.

They've also gotten way out of hand. I find it amusing that the DMG says prestige classes are optional and the best ones are the ones tailored to your campaign world. They've lost their "prestige" when they get tossed into builds and people get offended with any DM that won't allow them freely. At that point I wish they'd have base classes and feats that do similar things.

A lot of gaming groups say don't go crazy with the prestiges, and that works pretty well but it isn't clearly defined. So there can be mistakes.

TheIronGolem

2014-03-16, 01:53 PM

A genre defined by entirely making things up, without any regard for genre appropriateness, would be "child's play." You know, the sort with no internal consistency, no reason for anything to be the way it is, no satisfactory plot arcs, the addition of abilities for characters without any previous reference to them or logical reason for them to have suddenly arisen, and pretty much everything that defines what is considered to be bad writing. If you want anything with a degree of seriousness, you can't just throw everything into the mix willy-nilly. Now, perhaps it is that you want to play Super Smash Brothers*, where everything fights everything regardless of genre or theme (besides, obviously, all being Nintendo characters), but I, when I imagine Dungeons and Dragons, imagine a role-playing game, which is dependent on there being a coherent situation to role-play in.

Nothing I or anyone else in this thread have suggested conflicts in any way with what you claim to want here. Just because I don't always stay within your list of favored fantasy character archetypes (which if I recall correctly you stated as "knights and wizards and maybe some rakish thieves") doesn't mean I'm guilty of polluting the genre. Neither D&D nor fantasy in general needs to stay within your comfort zone (not that the character I've described really goes that far out of those bounds anyway, as others have rightly noted).

And as for people being angrily dismissive of my stated opinions on how one should play the game, you should all be a little more introspective on your own comments and the views inherent in the dialogue of much of these threads, which is absolutely permeated with implicit assumptions about play-style; things like "anything you can find in a book goes," "aim for mechanical advantage above all else," and "ignore rules that don't suit you, like multiclassing XP costs."

"Anything you find in a book goes" isn't asserted at all. At most, it's a null-hypothesis for cases where the list of allowed materials cannot be assumed. When the situation specifies "no ToB" or "no psionics" or whatever, the community tends to respect that in their responses.

"Aim for mechanical advantage above all else" is pure straw.

"Ignore rules that don't suit you" is the only one of these that actually exists, and is shared not only by every other RPG community, but is explicitly endorsed by the rules of nearly every RPG ever written. I don't know why you would hold this up as a negative.

As for the specific case of multiclassing XP penalties, there's an excellent reason it's so often ignored. It's a poorly-written, ill-considered rule that does nothing to make the game better. Pathfinder was right to drop it.

You may not (always) say these things as overtly as I state my opinions, undoubtedly because I don't have the luxury of an army of Tippy-worshippers to whisper assent to all of my posts, but you make these things plenty obvious nonetheless.

Ah, yes, the Hivemind Defense. A tactic as classic as it is ineffective. At least you didn't include the word "sheeple".