Removing pre-requisites for PrCs

[heavyfuel]

I think the reason PrCs aren't so popular is that there's such a huge investment in the form of meeting pre-reqs for them. Sure, there are a few PrCs that are well worth the price of admission (more on that later), but the absolutely vast majority of PrCs are just plain not worth it. Not to mention, if you didn't plan ahead, you have to wait a bunch of levels to meet these pre-reqs.

So I was thinking, would anything be really broken if most pre-reqs were just... gone?

How it works:
- All pre-reqs are gone, with 3 exceptions;
- Skill ranks pre-reqs are substitued with a level pre-req. If you needed 9 ranks in Hide for a PrC, now you need to be level 6, the level at which you'd be expected to get 9 ranks;
- Spell level pre-reqs are substitued with a level pre-req. If you needed the ability to cast 3rd level spells, now you need be level 5, the level at which you'd be expected to get 3rd level spells;
- BAB pre-reqs stay as they are, as a way to value full BAB classes.

Now, as I said before, some PrCs which are already strong would become even stronger now, so each PrC would be subject to the DMG rule that they may not exist. I think a good starting point is this old thread over at Min/Max on PrC's Tiers (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=1573.0). Basically every PrC is given a value from -2 (catastrophic) to +2 (marvelous). PrCs marked at +2 would likely be banned or still have their pre-reqs.

So, anything that would become too broken from allowing much easier access to PrCs?

[The Glyphstone]

I'm not sure it would really help or hurt at all. There are only a handful of cases where the prerequisites are the onerous part of a PrC, usually it's their crippled casting advances or other useless/detrimental class features that make them bad. If you're keeping the level minimum to prevent early entry, very little will change except a handful of skill points that don't have to be spent, and the skill requirements for PrCs are usually in line with their theme or intended entrant.

[johnbragg]

I think the reason PrCs aren't so popular is that there's such a huge investment in the form of meeting pre-reqs for them.

I don't think that's the reason, though. Most prestige classes aren't bad because they have fiddly prereqs. They're bad because they're either underpowered, or overpowered.

Prestige classes seemed like a good idea at the dawn of 3rd Edition. But it turns out that pretty much anything worth writing a 5 or 10 level prestige class for, you should just write a base class for.

A prestige class like Eldritch Knight makes some sort of sense, until someone publishes HExblade as a base class (yes Hexblade was terrible, but you've now given official WOTC RAW permission to start homebrewing gish classes.)



So, anything that would become too broken from allowing much easier access to PrCs?

No, but it also wouldn't mean much increase in the use of PRCs. Either the PRC is less powerful than another level in your Tier 1-2 casting class, in which case it's a bad idea for the player, or it's more powerful, in which case the DM will have questions.

[Particle_Man]

Mystic theurge becomes more viable, as you could have full caster levels on one side, such as a cleric 3/mystic theurge 10 having 13 levels of cleric plus 10 levels of wizard. Or am I misreading this?

[Biggus]

While I'm not skilled enough at optimization to give specifics, my instinct is that this would make a lot of overpowered combos available which weren't before. Being able to take a level or two of all your favourite +1 tier classes without restriction, combined with a +2 tier class, could make casters even more broken. I think a graded approach might work better, something like: -2 and -1 tier classes work as you describe, +0 and +1 tier use your system but keep their feat requirements, +2 tier keep all requirements.

[Eldonauran]

Prestige classes are already under the purview of the DM to allow or not allow, as outlined in the DMG. They are variant rules, even if very popular.

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 avail-able 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.
I say feel free to do whatever you wish to make them more balanced as you see them.

[HouseRules]

As stated in the Dysfunctional Rules Thread, Prestige Classes that advance features of other classes do not stack when the character gains levels in the base class after the level in the Prestige Class.

Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 1/Cleric 1/Wizard 1 has 4 levels of Cleric Spell Progression and 4 levels of Wizard Spell Progression.

Different Prestige Classes that advance class features of the same base class overlaps.

Druid 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Hierophant 1/Mystic Theurge 1 has 4 levels of Druid Spell Progression and 4 levels of Wizard Spell Progression.

[heavyfuel]

I have only had the time to skim the replies and will give more in depth answers later, but I wish to make a point.

At least a couple of replies mentioned the problem being bad casting progression. Well... Bad casting progression only affects classes that have spell casting. While that is a large number of classes, plenty of classes and builds are mostly magic free. Even classes that only get 4ths (Paladins Rangers Hexblades etc) can afford to caster levels if they're getting nice things in other areas.

Anyway, that's all I have time to say for now.

[Zaq]

It’s likely a fine baseline as long as you review each individual case on its own merits.

Classes with important features that assume that you have something in the prereqs should probably keep those prereqs, but it also makes some sense to simply say that only those features require the prereqs. Hard for a frenzied berserker to make use of increased returns on PA without PA, after all.

One effect is that PrCs that usually use skills as a way of necessitating a dip (there are lots of examples where there’s a clear intended entry class, but the prereqs include a skill that the entry class doesn’t get in-class, implying a multiclass entry) get easier to enter. This is likely a feature for you rather than a bug, but it’s something to keep in mind.

For the spell level requirements, does this allow non-spellcasters (or secondary spellcasters or characters with just a minor dip in a spellcasting class) to qualify for PrCs that assume that you’re a caster? If so, is that desirable for you? I can’t think of TOO many cases where that’s bad, but worth asking.

How do you feel about classes where the implied level prereq is hidden in the feats required? For example, a class that requires Spring Attack has an implied prereq of BAB +4, even if the class itself doesn’t spell that out. Would your proposed rule allow a character to enter such a class with less than +4 BAB?

[pabelfly]

I'd be more inclined to adjust PrC entry requirements based on the individual player. If a player wants to enter a PrC but they're not able to meet prereqs, maybe let them change their skill point allocations, give them a new in-class skill or two, or give them bonus feat/s to help them enter the class they want, depending on the player's power relative to the rest of the party. I think that would be much better than removing the prereqs entirely and ruining the flavour of prestige classes.

[Mike Miller]

I have strongly considered removing all prereqs for PrCs and just letting them be taken at first level or whenever. The thing to consider there is adding to existing abilities which don't exist yet, such as +1d6 sneak attack without SA or +1 level of spellcasting without already having spellcasting, etc.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Prestige classes seemed like a good idea at the dawn of 3rd Edition. But it turns out that pretty much anything worth writing a 5 or 10 level prestige class for, you should just write a base class for.
Uh, you got that backwards. Pretty much any base class you could write should be a class + PrC combo, chosen from a handful of generic base classes with a ton of PrCs.

[johnbragg]

Uh, you got that backwards. Pretty much any base class you could write should be a class + PrC combo, chosen from a handful of generic base classes with a ton of PrCs.

You know, I did get it backwards. But that's the reason PrCs have lost some popularity compared to early 3E is that there are base classes that do what the PrCs should be doing.

If you limit the base classes, then hybrids have to multiclass their way into prestige classes, and the prestige classes have a function. Take fighter 1st level, sorcerer 2nd--you now *qualify* for a gish PrC.

Or you could just start with one of the many gish base classes. The proliferation of base classes has made prestige classes less relevant.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The proliferation of base classes has made prestige classes less relevant.
You have a point there, especially in Pathfinder. In PF, you really can do a ton of stuff with the right (hybrid) class and some archetypes (as I understand it--PF experts, correct me if I'm wrong). 3.5 still has a lot of concepts that aren't expressed in base classes, but the same effect does show, particularly with the duskblade.


3.5 has PrCs by the dozen, so you'd think the designers were quite fond of them, but they never went quite so far as to actually suggest the "base class + PrC" paradigm to the player. In general, 3.5 books are really, really light on mechanical optimization advice, which is odd (a missed chance, in my view). I mean, if I buy a chess set with 300-page manual, I bloody well expect to have some strategy in there.

[Particle_Man]

As stated in the Dysfunctional Rules Thread, Prestige Classes that advance features of other classes do not stack when the character gains levels in the base class after the level in the Prestige Class.

Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 1/Cleric 1/Wizard 1 has 4 levels of Cleric Spell Progression and 4 levels of Wizard Spell Progression.

Different Prestige Classes that advance class features of the same base class overlaps.

Druid 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Hierophant 1/Mystic Theurge 1 has 4 levels of Druid Spell Progression and 4 levels of Wizard Spell Progression.

That is indeed a dysfunctional rule. I will be house ruling that such that prestige classes that advance features of other classes do indeed stack when the character gains levels in the base class after the level in the prestige class.

[GrayDeath]

Well, it would massively increase the popularity of "Stupid feat noone ever takes" prereq Classes, like Master of the 9, Kensai and most importantly Telflammar Shadowlord.

It would likely, as long as one bans the ultrasuper Caster PRC`s, not lead to any imbalance, only to fewer Levels in Base Classes taken.

[heavyfuel]

Mystic theurge becomes more viable, as you could have full caster levels on one side, such as a cleric 3/mystic theurge 10 having 13 levels of cleric plus 10 levels of wizard. Or am I misreading this?

Well, you'd still need one level of wizard to progress as a wizard. You can't progress a class you don't have. So you could do something like Cleric 2/Wizard 1/MT 10 and cast as Cleric 12 and Wizard 11. Basically it's automatic early entry trick.


Prestige classes are already under the purview of the DM to allow or not allow, as outlined in the DMG. They are variant rules, even if very popular.

I say feel free to do whatever you wish to make them more balanced as you see them.

Isn't everything under DM purview? That's literally rule 0 of rpgs. I'm asking if I'd be breaking anything by allowing this.


It’s likely a fine baseline as long as you review each individual case on its own merits.

Classes with important features that assume that you have something in the prereqs should probably keep those prereqs, but it also makes some sense to simply say that only those features require the prereqs. Hard for a frenzied berserker to make use of increased returns on PA without PA, after all.

One effect is that PrCs that usually use skills as a way of necessitating a dip (there are lots of examples where there’s a clear intended entry class, but the prereqs include a skill that the entry class doesn’t get in-class, implying a multiclass entry) get easier to enter. This is likely a feature for you rather than a bug, but it’s something to keep in mind.

For the spell level requirements, does this allow non-spellcasters (or secondary spellcasters or characters with just a minor dip in a spellcasting class) to qualify for PrCs that assume that you’re a caster? If so, is that desirable for you? I can’t think of TOO many cases where that’s bad, but worth asking.

How do you feel about classes where the implied level prereq is hidden in the feats required? For example, a class that requires Spring Attack has an implied prereq of BAB +4, even if the class itself doesn’t spell that out. Would your proposed rule allow a character to enter such a class with less than +4 BAB?

I fully intend to do that. I think using the min/max post I mentioned in the OP is a good start, but yes, every class will be analyzed individually once a player requests it.

Yes, you still need whatever it is to benefit from these class features. Like I answered Particle_Man, you can't benefit from something you don't have. If class says you get an extra effect to your Sneak Attack, you still need Sneak Attack from some source.

I don't mind this point about skills. If a player wants to enter Assassin from Fighter, let them.

It does allow for it, but I honestly don't see it breaking anything. If a class was made to be taken by a level 5 Cleric and you take it as a level 5 Paladin, you're still gonna be weaker than the Cleric.

Implied pre-reqs are still pre-reqs. A class that used to require Spring Attack now requires BAB +4, yes.


Well, it would massively increase the popularity of "Stupid feat noone ever takes" prereq Classes, like Master of the 9, Kensai and most importantly Telflammar Shadowlord.

It would likely, as long as one bans the ultrasuper Caster PRC`s, not lead to any imbalance, only to fewer Levels in Base Classes taken.

That's exactly the aim here.

[Eldonauran]

Isn't everything under DM purview? That's literally rule 0 of rpgs. I'm asking if I'd be breaking anything by allowing this.
While everything is under the purview of the DM as Rule 0 does exist, prestige classes are variant rule even in the base game and should not be expected to be available, even if most people do expect them to be available. There is some clear differences between Rule 0 and variant rule options, even if they are overlooked where prestige classes are concerned.

As far as breaking anything? No, not as far as I am concerned. Whenever I choose to allow prestige classes, I am often very careful that the ones I make available (or that are requested) will not overbalance the game play I had in mind. You just need to prepare yourself for what you are allowing. Outside of that, you bring the balance to the game.