Does anyone use the PrC adaptation notes?

[gogogome]

I've been perusing optimization forums for a while and I noticed that no one mentions or uses the PrC adaptation notes, ever, unless it's a shadowcraft mage. Is there a reason for this?

[Thurbane]

Divine Anima Mage seems to get mentioned a bit.

[Goaty14]

Generally adaptation notes are used as excuses for refluffing IMO, just as mere guidelines saying "this is how far you can go with your fluff before the DM can look at you weird" sort of thing.

[Blue Jay]

I've been perusing optimization forums for a while and I noticed that no one mentions or uses the PrC adaptation notes, ever, unless it's a shadowcraft mage. Is there a reason for this?

Adaptation sections don't have a consistent identity. Some of them just offer advice for refluffing (like Goaty said). Some of them offer general suggestions and guidelines for homebrewers. Only a rare few of them include ready-to-use class variants.

So, generally speaking, they're more difficult to implement, and more difficult to get approved, than "official" content.

[heavyfuel]

I'm generally a-ok with adaptations.

I've had a Psionic Abjurant Champion (Psychokinetic Champion) and he was no stronger than the standard Arcane PrC.

Also, pretty much every class/feat/spell that has very specific and setting dependent fluff I allow my players to use without said fluff.

I suppose people on the forums don't talk much about them because they sometimes require so much DM intervention it's basically homebrew

[Epic Legand]

...Unarmed Swordsage

[heavyfuel]

...Unarmed Swordsage

Not to be confused with the frowned upon Arcane Swordsage

[Zaq]

I see a decent quantity of mentions of the adaptations for Jade Phoenix Mage and Ruby Knight Vindicator. Though those basically amount to "JPM, only without the nonevil restriction" and "RKV, but not devoted to Wee Jas."

[Piggy Knowles]

I DM’d a game with a vivicarnate (good-aligned necrocarnate adaptation), though the adaptation required a fair bit of work, as most necrocarnum soulmelds have a decidedly non-good feel. I ended up creating a bunch of new soulmelds to make it work.

Adapting Ordained Champion to other martial deities seems pretty common. (And some people seem to have very.... flexible ideas of what constitutes a martial deity.)

[Thurbane]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of adaptations? Might be interesting to see...

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've been perusing optimization forums for a while and I noticed that no one mentions or uses the PrC adaptation notes, ever, unless it's a shadowcraft mage. Is there a reason for this?

They don't get mentioned much because they rarely offer anything of note. The ones that do offer something useful get mentioned often enough, such as the StP erudite or the unarmed swordsage for example.

[Troacctid]

Generally, adaptation notes are for the DM, not the player, so it's not surprising to me that they're mentioned relatively rarely in player-side optimization discussions.

[RoboEmperor]

Generally, adaptation notes are for the DM, not the player, so it's not surprising to me that they're mentioned relatively rarely in player-side optimization discussions.

Since we're on the subject, are PrC adaptations RAW? As in can a player point to this and say "RAW says I can play a shadowcraft mage as a human!" Or are they variant rules, like needing to pay money to level up?

[Troacctid]

I mean...both? They're not mutually exclusive.

[Nifft]

Since we're on the subject, are PrC adaptations RAW? As in can a player point to this and say "RAW says I can play a shadowcraft mage as a human!" Or are they variant rules, like needing to pay money to level up? Are PrCs themselves RAW?

Per RAW, every PrC is an optional addition to the game.

Per RAW, the DM can use them as examples for homebrew content, and players should not feel entitled to use any specific PrC for any purpose.

There's a pretty wide gulf between what RAW says, and what the forum tends to assume is normal.

[noce]

I'm playing a Stonespeaker Guardian that is a earth dwarf instead of a Goliath, based on the adaptation section that describes the prestige class as indicated for earth flavoured races.
The adaptation goes on to say that you can create even an Oceanspeaker Guardian or a Magmaspeaker one, so my DM had no problem letting me in as a earth dwarf.

[RoboEmperor]

I mean...both? They're not mutually exclusive.

Well, a munchkin can shove one in a DM's face and yell at him that he's house ruling or a noob if he rejects it while he can't shove the other in the DM's face because variant rules are 100% within the DM's jurisdiction.

But I get your point :P

[BowStreetRunner]

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.The intent with regard to prestige classes always seemed to be to provide options custom-tailored to a DM's given campaign needs. Adaptation notes were an extension of this intent. From a design standpoint the goal was never PC optimization. The idea of a player character with levels in 3 base classes and 7 different Prestige classes who could effectively 'break' one of the major limitations imposed to maintain game balance was never intended.

It's sort of analogous to the way the creators of Civilization intended players to play through the decline of their civilization to rise again at some later time, only to have players mostly just go back to a save game to prevent their decline in the first place. They eventually abandoned mechanics designed around this concept since in reality players just didn't play that way. Prestige classes as originally intended work very differently from actual practice. But that doesn't mean the designers didn't keep trying.

[Uncle Pine]

Adaptations that aren't explicitly fleshed out are often not mentioned for the same reason homebrews aren't, despite one being closer to RAW than the other, and that is because they both require DM adjudication.
People generally come to online forums to get answers to their questions, and in a group game with so many rules, splatbooks and moving pieces which also requires an arbiter with limitless power it can be hard to be right because "every table is different". As such, it is necessary to establish a common ground before meaningful discussions can be held: this common ground is generally a sliding scale of RAW vs. RAI. "Ask your DM" suggestions can still have a place in this, but they're inherently less meaningful because you can "ask your DM" for absolutely everything, including poorly defined adaptations such as the arcane swordsage from ToB or the witch class from DMG.

[Psyren]

My philosophy is that optional rules are still rules, and thus PrCs and their adaptations are fine. Really the only reason it matters at all is because enough of us have the same rulebooks that we can join an online discussion or a new gamegroup and expect the people there to know what we're talking about. This is not the case with most homebrew or third-party material, so that stuff tends to get looked upon unfavorably (when it's looked upon at all) as a result.


Well, a munchkin can shove one in a DM's face and yell at him that he's house ruling or a noob if he rejects it while he can't shove the other in the DM's face because variant rules are 100% within the DM's jurisdiction.

This is rather easily solved by not playing the game with people that shove things in your face at all, i.e. jerks and trolls.

[Heliomance]

Are PrCs themselves RAW?

Per RAW, every PrC is an optional addition to the game.

Per RAW, the DM can use them as examples for homebrew content, and players should not feel entitled to use any specific PrC for any purpose.

There's a pretty wide gulf between what RAW says, and what the forum tends to assume is normal.

See, that attitude made sense when it was just the PHB. Given that almost every splatbook since has introduced vast numbers of PrCs, to the point that they're almost certainly in the top four types of extant content by amount (along with monsters, spells, and feats, and I CBA to work out what order they're in), it really doesn't work anymore. By focusing on them so heavily in splatbooks, the entire "these are rare and special things and you shouldn't count on getting them" dynamic fell apart.

[Crake]

They don't get mentioned much because they rarely offer anything of note. The ones that do offer something useful get mentioned often enough, such as the StP erudite or the unarmed swordsage for example.

I thought the spell to power erudite was an alternate class feature, not an adaptation?

[Nifft]

See, that attitude made sense when it was just the PHB. RAW is an attitude? Okay.


Given that almost every splatbook since has introduced vast numbers of PrCs, to the point that they're almost certainly in the top four types of extant content by amount (along with monsters, spells, and feats, and I CBA to work out what order they're in), it really doesn't work anymore.
Nah, it works just fine.

The list of PrCs is a list of ideas, inspirations, and templates.

The contents of the list don't change in nature just because the list has grown significantly longer.



I mean, let's do an apples-to-apples comparison.

The list of monsters was relatively short when only the Monster Manual was published.

Today the list of monsters is longer, since there are five Monster Manuals, two Codices, one Folio, and a bunch more splatted in random splatbooks.

Now that the list of monsters is longer, are monsters no longer optional content? Is it a requirement of a DM that he or she MUST include every single monster in every book, just because there are more of them?



I don't think so. I think the DM can pick & choose monsters.

Likewise, the DM can pick & choose PrCs -- or design new ones using the published content as a template.

Given that the Adaptations sections on PrCs exist even late into 3.5e, adaptation by the DM seems to be exactly how published PrCs are intended to be used.

[Heliomance]

RAW is an attitude? Okay.

The designer's attitude, yes. I can use the term "design philosophy" if you prefer. The apparent intent of the designers when they wrote the PrCs in the PHB is not the same, so far as I can tell, as the apparent intent of the designers filling splatbook after splatbook with PrCs. It's a case of philosophy drift.

[Nifft]

The designer's attitude, yes. I can use the term "design philosophy" if you prefer. The apparent intent of the designers when they wrote the PrCs in the PHB is not the same, so far as I can tell, as the apparent intent of the designers filling splatbook after splatbook with PrCs. It's a case of philosophy drift.

There are exactly zero PrCs in the PHB.

The continual presence of adaptation notes is an explicit contradiction to your theory about philosophy drift.

PrCs are and have always been optional content. I mean, you can see that IRL if you just open a few advice-request threads on this forum. People list which sources are allowed because those are the options that the DM has added. Sometimes it's just Core, or SRD, or Core + Complete, or ... you get the idea.

Designers filling splatbooks is list expansion. See the previous post for an explanation of why a longer list isn't any kind of philosophical drift.

Books are full of options, alternates, and variants -- some books like Unearthed Arcana are nothing else.

D&D was born from system hacking, and it remains true to its roots.

[AnimeTheCat]

The designer's attitude, yes. I can use the term "design philosophy" if you prefer. The apparent intent of the designers when they wrote the PrCs in the PHB is not the same, so far as I can tell, as the apparent intent of the designers filling splatbook after splatbook with PrCs. It's a case of philosophy drift.

This is just a personal opinion, but I don't think any game is truly intended to be played with every splat available. If you look at it from that perspective, there really isn't any way that the thought process behind the original prestige classes is any different from the future prestige classes. Further, if a DM isn't including the Meldshaping classes from Magic of Incarnum in the game world, it stands to reason that none of the prestige classes should be available either (including the ones that can be achieved through incarnum based feats).

In a desert setting, I doubt the "Design Philosophy" was to include setting classes/information from Frostburn or Stormwrack (Dungeonscape and Cityscape are exceptions due to their nature, but should still be restricted based on setting). In a world where arcane magic is persecuted and hunted down, possibly to near extinction, it's not reasonable to expect to be allowed to play things like Mage of the Arcane Order or Sword of the Arcane Order, as there is likely no Arcan Order at all. For that matter, why would books like Complete Arcane and Complete Mage be allowed at all in such a setting, it doesn't make thematic sense.

All I'm saying is that in my personal opinion, I doubt that the time, effort, and thought was put in to every 3.5 book to make them all playable all at the same time all together without issue. I can bring up thoughts, exploits, etc. to back up my opinion, but it is still just my opinion and I realize that. Whether the designers filled the splatbooks with lots of new prestige classes or not is irrelevant to my opinion of whether Prestige Classes are meant to be special or not, because I view splatbooks as being uniqe and special in and of themselves and are not required to play any game.

In short, Just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean that they aren't meant to be special, it just means that there are a multitude of possible flavorful options that a DM can include in their game but are by no means require to.

[RoboEmperor]

You say that, but then Eberron has "If it's in d&d it has a place in Eberron" which directly suggests they intended for everything to be played together at the same time. At least in Eberron.

I'm also sure I've read somewhere that wotc's official stance is that if there is a race/class you want to play from another setting, the player should be encouraged to play it rather than be denied it (i.e. warforged artificer in FR).

[Nifft]

You say that, but then Eberron has "If it's in d&d it has a place in Eberron" which directly suggests they intended for everything to be played together at the same time. At least in Eberron.

Eberron is a great setting. It's got some very well-written books. It's also got some internal inconsistencies if you try to use every Eberron book at the same time.

The DM is responsible for making the game work, and that means the DM is responsible for picking what goes into the game -- from which Eberron lore to use, to which PrCs to write / adapt / copy-paste. The DM can't offload that responsibility.


I'm also sure I've read somewhere that wotc's official stance is that if there is a race/class you want to play from another setting, the player should be encouraged to play it rather than be denied it (i.e. warforged artificer in FR).

Citation please.

I'd love to see them try to enforce that "official stance", if it is a real thing.

I suspect that WotC's actual official stance is that everyone should buy every single WotC book, even books from settings they'll never play.

[Psyren]

You say that, but then Eberron has "If it's in d&d it has a place in Eberron" which directly suggests they intended for everything to be played together at the same time. At least in Eberron.

Well, just because something has a place in Eberron doesn't mean it will have a place in your campaign, even if that campaign is set in Eberron. Very few campaigns cover the entirety of a published setting's scope.

With that said however, I do agree that the designers want PrCs to be used, and adapatations are their attempt to grease the skids. After all, PrCs are content, and content sells books. (I would wager a hefty sum that the number of additional books sold because of an adaptation inside far outweighs the number of people who decided not to buy a book because of one.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I thought the spell to power erudite was an alternate class feature, not an adaptation?

Basic erudite is an ACF. Spell to power is in the adaptation notes for erudite. Back of CPsi if you want to look for yourself.

[Blue Jay]

Basic erudite is an ACF. Spell to power is in the adaptation notes for erudite. Back of CPsi if you want to look for yourself.

Technically, it's a class variant, not an ACF. But, I'm not sure what the actual rules differences are between them. I always thought the difference was that you're not allowed to take multiple variants, but you are allowed to take multiple ACFs; but that's not actually written in UA. Did I get that idea from somewhere else?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Technically, it's a class variant, not an ACF. But, I'm not sure what the actual rules differences are between them. I always thought the difference was that you're not allowed to take multiple variants, but you are allowed to take multiple ACFs; but that's not actually written in UA. Did I get that idea from somewhere else?

Couldn't tell ya. I suppose I misremembered basic erudite as an ACF because it's -much- more complete than most other variants.

[Thurbane]

The Spell to power Erudite info can be found here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a

[Doctor Awkward]

I once played in an evil game where I ran a psionic variant of Jade Phoenix Mage.

Basically my character was corrupted in the awakening ritual and possessed by a fragment of will of the Big Bad the JPM's are supposed to keep sealed. So my character's goal was to hunt down and slaughter the other living JPM's and corrupt their successors in the same way.