PDA

View Full Version : The Purpose of Prestige Classes (A Treatise)



ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-21, 05:12 PM
"Me? Take a Prestige Class? But I thought those were only for munchkins? Or maybe Clerics?" -Elan, Dashing Swordsman

I noticed something recently, I never read base classes beyond the first seven levels. I mean, why would I? It's so blatantly clear that prestige classes are better than base classes. They have high level powers, abusive combo possibilities, and often don't even require you to give up your old class features!

But is this how things are supposed to be? Should we build our boring, weak characters planning on our eventual entrance into an intersting, powerful PrC? (We usually have to, considering the feat and skill requirements.)

I feel like this is a problem, and one that exists not in the system of Prestige Classes, but in the design of those classes, in WotC Sourcebooks, third party documents, and homebrew design alike.

I'd like to posit the following as opinions on the purpose of prestige classes and the changes that need to be made in their design.

The Golden Rule of the Prestige Class: The Purpose of the Prestige Class should be to allow a character to play a concept that is otherwise unplayable by the rules or balance of the game.

It is not to make characters better. Prestige Classes should not be "Better Classes," they should be more focused classes.
Specifically, PrCs should be balanced to normal classes, in so much as any two classes can be balanced.

So, what builds am I referring to? There are two types: Mechanically Unplayable and Creatively Unplayable.

Mechanically Unplayable builds are those builds which are built around feats, actions, or abilities that are allowed in game but which do not have the support of rules or higher level abilties to be useful in a significant number of situations. This does not include abilities that are just less powerful than certain other abilties. A good example of this is Grenadelike Alchemical Weapons. A bad example of this is the Improved Trip feat.

Creatively Unplayable builds are those aesthetic character concepts which simply do not have rules support, such as a wizard who wished to specialize in Stars and Constellations.

The purpose of Prestige Classes is to make these builds playable.

The flaw in the creation of many Prestige Classes is that designers confuse the enabling of certain builds with the enhancement of "specialized" builds.
One of the key causes of overpowered or poorly designed PrCs is the idea of specialization, such as a fighter with deadly skills that are only usable against Golems, or a fighter who gains massive bonuses with axes but takes penalties with swords.
These PrCs either enable an all-or-nothing scenario in which the character either dominates the situation or is useless; give a character bonuses on the same actions he's always used and meaningless penalties on actions he never would have taken anyway; or give bonuses to an already playble build bonuses simply for "declaring" that that is the PCs specialization by taking the class.
Specialization is a fallacy, and should not be the purpose of a PrC.

I'd like to posit these ideas as my opinion on PrCs, and the role they should play in the game.

Iituem
2007-02-21, 05:31 PM
I should probably say a great deal more on this, but you've pretty much summed it up. Thus:

Hear Hear!

Ankhor
2007-02-21, 05:37 PM
I concur. This isn't Fire Emblem!

cferejohn
2007-02-21, 06:32 PM
If a prestige class is to allow you to play character concepts not otherwise supported by the rules, why wouldn't you just design new base classes instead? I hear what you are saying, but given that most PrCs are designed for entry at 7th level or higher, it seems to me that there is more to it than that.

After all, if you wanted to design a wizard that specialized in Stars and Constellations, why wouldn't he be specializing in that from 1st level, rather than waiting for 7th, 10th, or whatever?

I think that to some degree prestige classes need to represent paths that are not available to a character until he has crossed some threshhold of knowledge or training. Often I think this *is* specific to specialization. I see your point about prestige classes that give bonuses to things the character was doing already while penalizing things he wasn't doing, but I think that reflects a poorly defined prestige class rather than a conceptual flaw.

Also, in my opinion, prestige classes *should* be slightly more powerful than base classes, at least in certian scenarios. To take a prestige class you are often taking skills and feats that you would not otherwise spend your resources on (Hide for the Blackguard, anyone?), and it seems to me like this needs to be balanced.

Perhaps this is just a philisophical difference. In my games, prestige classes are usually taught by specific masters or groups that the characters have to convince to train them, whether by deeds or payment; in exchange I sometimes will waive a requirement (or require them to take it asap once they enter the class), as long as they are high enough level to get into the class and are philisophically aligned with it. Of course, the way I use prestige classes, the characters don't always know which ones are going to be available to them, so I'm especially forgiving of skill point requirements amongst low-skill-point classes as long as they are high enough level that they *could* have the required ranks.

Of the WotC prestige classes, which do you find to be particularly egregious, either conceptually or power-wise?

TheOOB
2007-02-21, 06:44 PM
I agree with the OPs post, but I think there is one other aspect of PrCs thats important. PrCs should allow you to do something or play a concept you couldn't normally play without while still complimenting your base classes abilities. A PrC may specilize you or give you access to abilities you otherwise wouldn't get, but your primary role should still be defined by what class(s) you took prior to taking the PrC. Sure you could make a new concept with another base class, but apart from being a heck of a lot more work, you'd also have to spread out new and unique abilities over 20 levels and make the class entirely complete by itself.

For example, the arcane archer is a wonderful class (powerwise a little on the weak side, but otherwise extreamly well built). When you take arcane archer you are gaining unique magical bow abilities you could not gain otherwise, but the core of your character is still defined by what classes you took to enter the class. A duskblade will be different from a fighter/wizard who will be different from a ranger/sorcerer.

Darth Anthony
2007-02-21, 06:58 PM
PrCs are akin to many other chices for PCs - - if you focus to gain a bonus in a narrow area or application, you trade off more generalized bonuses.

I disgaree with the idea that "these PrCs either enable an all-or-nothing scenario in which the character either dominates the situation or is useless." The reality of becoming a specialist at anything is that the PC will not always be able to apply that knowledge to all aspects of a story. Even the most focused fighter can use a weapon which will cause damage (excluding certain DRs, I am speaking in general terms.). I cannot think of a magic using PrC that cannot cast some spell which either causes damage, heals a person, enhances a persons actions, or helps a party gather knowledge about a situation or foe.

I agree though that PrC / specialization should require passing a level of knowledge or training, and that a good GM will work it into the story. I restrict the advancement in PrC without specialized training. That way I have story hooks and a way to keep the PrCs in line with the stories and other characters without being coercive (i.e. to avoid the "no you cannot have it" answer - - if they want it, they need to do more than just tally up XP and write a new level number on the charater sheet).

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-21, 07:34 PM
I disgaree with the idea that "these PrCs either enable an all-or-nothing scenario in which the character either dominates the situation or is useless." The reality of becoming a specialist at anything is that the PC will not always be able to apply that knowledge to all aspects of a story. Even the most focused fighter can use a weapon which will cause damage (excluding certain DRs, I am speaking in general terms.). I cannot think of a magic using PrC that cannot cast some spell which either causes damage, heals a person, enhances a persons actions, or helps a party gather knowledge about a situation or foe.
Just being able to do damage is different than being balanced to an encounter, characters need higher level abilities and feats. Also, the idea of specialization may be balanced in the vacuum, but actual campaigns are plotted out by DMs, who plan and determine encounters with their characters in mind. If you're playing a Hunter of the Dead, your DM is given the ultimatatum of "play undead against us or I will be as good as an NPC warrior to the party.


I agree though that PrC / specialization should require passing a level of knowledge or training, and that a good GM will work it into the story. I restrict the advancement in PrC without specialized training. That way I have story hooks and a way to keep the PrCs in line with the stories and other characters without being coercive (i.e. to avoid the "no you cannot have it" answer - - if they want it, they need to do more than just tally up XP and write a new level number on the charater sheet).
This isn't actually a balance. Considering that all players really do is quest, this "Specialized training" is really just a different quest that changes where and why (but not how) a character can adventure. Also, it sidetracks the rest of the party while prospective Crystal Ice Adept gets to focus on his personal side-quest.

I appreciate that specialization is required in some extent to make the aspects of the class usable, but the focus should be balancing a weak style of play, not power-charging a poor class. (I also agree that the Arcane Archer is a good example of a class.)

TheOOB
2007-02-21, 08:04 PM
When a player wants to pick up a prestige class, I require them to justify where they learned the abilities of the class. For some PrCs (say invisible blade) the class is simply a result of specilized training by themselves. Anyone who spends time fighting with daggers a lot can become an invisible blade. However, if you want to become an arcane archer you need to learn the skills somehow, be it a mentor or some sort of manual (incidently, I don't have the elf or half-elf requirement on the arcane archer but elves rarely teach those not of their own race).

cferejohn
2007-02-21, 08:45 PM
But from a story point of view, don't you think that there *should* exist characters who specialize in fighting undead? I guess I would say that a DM shouldn't steer a character towards this sort of PrC unless it was appropriate to the story. Certainly a DM should not allow himself to be held hostage by a player who demands to play an undead fighter and then complains that he's essentially a warrior. If some kind of undead fighter PrC prestige class is available, it should be because there is some kind of huge undead war that has been going on for a long time or something of the sort - someplace where a character who has decided to specialize in fighting undead would expect to spend most of their adventuring career. Perhaps that is more appropriate for an NPC class than a PC (again, depends on the campaign setting/focus), but from a story point of view it certainly seems to make sense that there would be warriors out there who specialized in that sort of thing.

Anyway, currently a rogue could complain about the opposite whenever the party comes up against a bunch of undead. He *wishes* he was as effective as an NPC warrior (yeah yeah, he's still a skill monkey, but that still isn't much fun/use in combat).

I guess my view of PrCs is that they are integral to the story. A character can't just pick a PrC out of a book and say "I'm going for that" without working with me (the DM) so I can use the character's desire to play a certain PrC to build story around.

As for the party being dragged into a character's side quest, geez, half the adventures I do (and that may be conservative) are essentially hooked by one or two characters who then kind of drag the party along (especially as they get into the mid-to-high levels and the characters have been through enough that they could be considered friends i.e. willing to help each other out).

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-21, 09:32 PM
But from a story point of view, don't you think that there *should* exist characters who specialize in fighting undead? I guess I would say that a DM shouldn't steer a character towards this sort of PrC unless it was appropriate to the story. Certainly a DM should not allow himself to be held hostage by a player who demands to play an undead fighter and then complains that he's essentially a warrior. If some kind of undead fighter PrC prestige class is available, it should be because there is some kind of huge undead war that has been going on for a long time or something of the sort - someplace where a character who has decided to specialize in fighting undead would expect to spend most of their adventuring career. Perhaps that is more appropriate for an NPC class than a PC (again, depends on the campaign setting/focus), but from a story point of view it certainly seems to make sense that there would be warriors out there who specialized in that sort of thing.Well, tactically specializing in fighting undead is different than having a prestige class. In my opinion, this is the place of feats, equipment, and maybe variant levels, not a full PrC.



I guess my view of PrCs is that they are integral to the story. A character can't just pick a PrC out of a book and say "I'm going for that" without working with me (the DM) so I can use the character's desire to play a certain PrC to build story around.

As for the party being dragged into a character's side quest, geez, half the adventures I do (and that may be conservative) are essentially hooked by one or two characters who then kind of drag the party along (especially as they get into the mid-to-high levels and the characters have been through enough that they could be considered friends i.e. willing to help each other out).I apologize, by no means do I mean to criticize this style, it's a perfectly good way of handling adventures. I just mean to clarify that this doesn't quantify a balance or limitation on the class, but rather a story hook.

magic8BALL
2007-02-21, 10:22 PM
...just throwing something out there for the debate...

Isn't a Prestige Class suposed to represent prestige?

By that I mean the character needs to interact with NPC's to gain a training that few others recive, or they focus themselves along a path none before them have taken, and thus, amongst those who care anyway, the character has an awe of prestige.

The Dwarven Defender, for instance, is a mark of honour abve all else in a dwarven clan, and the Exotic Weapon master fights with such origionallity that other fighters look up to them.

There shouldn't just be a base class for every build. Multiclassing is always a viable option. So too is actually not taking the mathematically optimal feat selections. Prestige classes are a mark of prestige. Perhaps your Star and Constellation specialising wizard needed to learn how to be a succesful wizard before branching off, just as brain surgeons need to be docters first. I supose you could think of Neurosurgeon as a prestige class for docters, if you would.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-21, 10:28 PM
...just throwing something out there for the debate...

Isn't a Prestige Class suposed to represent prestige?

By that I mean the character needs to interact with NPC's to gain a training that few others recive, or they focus themselves along a path none before them have taken, and thus, amongst those who care anyway, the character has an awe of prestige.

The Dwarven Defender, for instance, is a mark of honour abve all else in a dwarven clan, and the Exotic Weapon master fights with such origionallity that other fighters look up to them.

There shouldn't just be a base class for every build. Multiclassing is always a viable option. So too is actually not taking the mathematically optimal feat selections. Prestige classes are a mark of prestige. Perhaps your Star and Constellation specialising wizard needed to learn how to be a succesful wizard before branching off, just as brain surgeons need to be docters first. I supose you could think of Neurosurgeon as a prestige class for docters, if you would.
Well, there are certain prestige classes that wouldn't make sense to be marks of prestige. (Fortune's Friend from Complete Scoundrel, Assassin)

TheOOB
2007-02-21, 11:56 PM
I think a concept such as undead hunting is deserving of a PrC, but I don't think a whole 10 levels is needed, a 3 or 5 level PrC will do.

Whichs brings another problum with PrCs, a class only needs to be 10 levels if it represents a huge commitment to your character. I needs a variety of abilities that redefine your character, leading up to capstone ability that shows the world that you are something special.

On the otherhand, a 3 or 5 level PrC represents time spent training in new special abilities without complete dedication to a new field.

cferejohn
2007-02-22, 01:27 AM
I do prefer the smaller PrCs. I don't think I've ever seen a 3 level one, but I might make a few now...

Darth Anthony
2007-02-22, 03:25 AM
Ok, I think I was misunderstanding your point. If we are talking about balance, PrCs can be tricky. I do not agree that a player choosing an obscure or *very* specialized PrC (it can be argued that these are the same in application, but regardless...) puts the DM in an ultimatum position. A good DM will let the player know that there may not be much application for the PrC, but there should be no absolute prohibition on a player choosing that path.

To me, looking at it as an ultimatum feels like exercising too much control over the players. I prefer to provide guidance and advice, without prohibiting a class. There are some limits of course, like the player who wanted to play an assassin in a party of lawful good 'save-the-meek' PCs. Besides, having a player choose an odd PrC can also spawn stories as they seek to find their niche.

Looking at it from the perspective of balancing the PCs and the opponents, the player who chooses to limit some parts of their character with PrCs (or multiclassing for that matter) in favor of others has to take the good with the bad. It is all about choices - more focus for less applicability, less focus for more applicability, advancing in one class to get the advanced feats / bonuses or seeking more feats / skills in multiple areas by muticlassing.

Using side quests can be balance, albiet an internal one. A party must cooperate, in combat and in downtime. It may be a simple matter of agreeing to meet at a certain inn in a city a year later. Or it may be the other characters agreeing to spend the time in the remote mountain monestery while the monk acquires the new skills over a period of months.

The side quests may also be a balance on the party as a whole in terms of successfully completing a story. This may be a bit tenuous of a rationale, but I figured I would toss it into the mix. If there are time limits on the story, such as political events driving the plot, then the party choosing to have one character develop a PrC now rather than deal with the current events in the story is the result of balancing how much of an contribution the PrC will be to the party's success.

I do not see how it sidetracks the rest of the party. If it is handled properly, there are many opportunities for the other characters. The wizard may use the time to do research, the ranger / fighter / paladin to develop a skill (for when they level up so they do not need to spend the time training later on), or many other possibilities.

An Undead Fighter is, IMHO, a poor PrC for most general campaigns. After all, unless you are going to play in areas infested by undead, most of the PrC advantages are wasted.

I think I am missing the point on this: "I appreciate that specialization is required in some extent to make the aspects of the class usable, but the focus should be balancing a weak style of play, not power-charging a poor class." What do you mean by a weak style of play?

I agree that a PrC should not be an opportunity to bring a poor class up to par with the rest of the classes. Which classes you are referring to?

This is a very interesting discussion...

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-22, 01:59 PM
I think I am missing the point on this: "I appreciate that specialization is required in some extent to make the aspects of the class usable, but the focus should be balancing a weak style of play, not power-charging a poor class." What do you mean by a weak style of play?

I agree that a PrC should not be an opportunity to bring a poor class up to par with the rest of the classes. Which classes you are referring to?

This is a very interesting discussion...
A weak style of play would be something like Craft (Trapmaking). The idea of a deftly skillful combat gadgeteer is interesting, but the rules for Craft (It takes about a week to make one low-level trap) make such a style of play impossible. However, the class Combat Trapsmith from Complete Scoundrel offers special abilities that allow you to use these abilities at a more reasonable rate (small specialized traps usable quickly). I think it's an excellent example of what a PrC should be.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-22, 02:06 PM
When I create Prestige Classes, I create them with the intention of granting the character an ability they couldn't otherwise have. Case-in-point: the Penumbracarnate intermingles Shadowcasting and Incarnum, the Cartogramancer allows an arcane caster to use magic with maps, and the Loup du Noir creates a way for a Ranger to become an animal.

Telonius
2007-02-22, 04:45 PM
I do prefer the smaller PrCs. I don't think I've ever seen a 3 level one, but I might make a few now...

I think there are a couple in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-22, 05:06 PM
I think the 3 level prestige class is a good idea, because it allows some refocusing and retexturing without making it seem like you are "done" with your previous class and on to your real character.

Also, it fixes one of the other issues people have when designing PrCs: Inundating them with special abilities to avoid "dead" levels that occur in 10 lvl PrCs.

knightsaline
2007-02-22, 06:43 PM
...just throwing something out there for the debate...

Isn't a Prestige Class suposed to represent prestige?

the only 2 PrCs i know of that represent being honoured above others are the dwarven defender and the eye of gruumsh.

did someone say "hunter of undead"? i created a PrC for that. its about 5 levels long and it represents someone who has dedicated their life to the sun god and destroying undead.

I really do not see why an assassin has to be evil? ever read robin hobbs assassins series? the main character is trained to become an assassin because he is the bastard child of a prince. he refuses to be a tool weilded by the king and develops the forbidden magic of the Wit. not all assissins are evil, just the majority. the blackguard seems to be just a fallen paladin, but why can't i just be a blackguard who is CG? Alignment seems to be a bit restrictive to me.

Zeta Kai
2007-02-22, 07:41 PM
I had always thought that Prestige Classes was a meta-game title: that meeting the requirements, securing the roleplayed mentor/teacher require to learn the PrC from, leveling in the class, & completing the class was a sign of prestige for the player, not neccesarily the character. An NPC may have no clue that I've become a 10th level assassin (& in fact that NPC shouldn't know I'm an assassin at all, until it is too late), put my gaming group will respect my character, & remember it (& me) for some time.

Iituem
2007-02-22, 08:23 PM
You have to kill someone to join the assassins. That's sort of evil. You regularly -kill- people regardless of who they are. That's pretty damn evil.

Mind you, I had this problem once where I had a good player who wanted to be an assassin and didn't quite grasp the whole 'merciless slaughter' thing, so I let his character know what he'd need to do. Naturally, the character balked at the exact details and started having second thoughts. In the end, we developed a sort of variant assassin with the assassin's paralytic attack only and more of a bent towards neutralising people without having to kill them. It turned out alright.


As for the blackguard, I get the feeling that to become one you sort of have to do some preeetty unspeakable things to get the dark gods to give you a leg up.

EffigyOfFaith
2007-02-23, 10:37 AM
I agree mostly with your treatise. But it seems to me that the main purpose of the PrC is to make WotC money. Most customization of a character can be accomplished via feat, skills and multicasting. Assassin is a great example of an unnecessary PrC. Any rogue that specializes in striking from the shadows assassin-like, toss in with some spell casting levels and a poison use feat it is mechanically an assassin with out the death attack, which is save or die cheese anyway. Another great way to customize a character is just changing the fluff. Change some spell descriptions and a ho hum wizard becomes and star and constellation specialist. I especially am irritated by PrCs that are merely to combination of two base classes. If you want to play a mage rogue, why not play an arcane trickster? Many classes like this up the power by effectively letting you advance in both classes at once.

Cheers

Fax Celestis
2007-02-23, 10:48 AM
I agree mostly with your treatise. But it seems to me that the main purpose of the PrC is to make WotC money. Most customization of a character can be accomplished via feat, skills and multicasting. Assassin is a great example of an unnecessary PrC. Any rogue that specializes in striking from the shadows assassin-like, toss in with some spell casting levels and a poison use feat it is mechanically an assassin with out the death attack, which is save or die cheese anyway. Another great way to customize a character is just changing the fluff. Change some spell descriptions and a ho hum wizard becomes and star and constellation specialist. I especially am irritated by PrCs that are merely to combination of two base classes. If you want to play a mage rogue, why not play an arcane trickster? Many classes like this up the power by effectively letting you advance in both classes at once.

Cheers

Granted, but the Assassin class gets quite a few unique spells that cannot be acquired any other way. The same with Blackguard.

EffigyOfFaith
2007-02-23, 11:23 AM
Granted, but the Assassin class gets quite a few unique spells that cannot be acquired any other way. The same with Blackguard.

True, but tweaking spell lists is the simplist fix of all to match crunch with flavor.

Krellen
2007-02-23, 12:32 PM
Of the WotC prestige classes, which do you find to be particularly egregious, either conceptually or power-wise?
The Loremaster. Especially when coupled with the already unbalanced Diviner Specialist. Loremasters gain a plethora of special abilities in exchange for a single feat; Wizards will already have the metamagic and item creation feats, and most will have two knowledges at 10 as well (arcana at least, and with a whole range to pick from and high intelligences, the second isn't a sacrifice.) If the character is a Diviner, then by 7th level they have to have the seven divinations anyway.

The only sacrifice a Wizard makes for becoming a Loremaster is the advancement of his familiar; and V's relationship with his Raven is indictative of how most players feel about their familiars anyway.

(A Loremaster Cleric is a far more interesting and balanced character, on the other hand. I have played one of those.)

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-23, 02:20 PM
Any of the "Bounty Hunter" classes I dislike. The ability to do nonlethal damage without penalty seems useful to them (and is) but it just removes the tactical conflict that makes such a style of play interesting.

Wizard_Tom
2007-02-23, 02:37 PM
My biggest problem with prestige classes stems from the fact that they let you play something other then the "norm." If I want to play something different, it is highly unlikely i really want to spend 5, 7, 10, or more levels as something else before I can play the class I actually want. I would much prefer to see base classes released that encompass a wide variety of concepts.