Finding myself disatisfied with Prestige Classes

[Luccan]

So, 3rd edition and 3.5 were my main TTRPGs for a good portion of my life. I've enjoyed them immensely and have several reasons I'll gladly continue to play them, even if they're no longer the focus of my gaming or even my favorite edition of D&D. But I've been thinking about Prestige Classes lately and I realized I don't like the consequences of how they're implemented. In order to make use of even a single prestige class, you have to plan out your progression at least to the point of entry. Leaving aside that you do, unfortunately, have to do this anyway because of how many terrible options have been included in this edition, it dictates your character's destiny from the very beginning. There's no naturally evolving into a character who might become, say, a Justiciar or a Blackguard. You're planning that, because you won't qualify if you don't. Which also makes it awkward to represent these as groups in the world, which some of PrCs are intended to be.

This doesn't have a groundbreaking point and it's not well organized, it's just something I was thinking about. PrCs just ended up being more about power and mechanics than about player reward and character/world-building and I don't really think that was for the better. I'm curious what other people think about this, though.

[Nifft]

Take a look at what the core rules say about prestige classes (DMG, p.176):



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.
(emphasis added)

Imagine a world where players don't look at splatbooks like shopping catalogs and don't see published PrCs as their best and only choices.

Imagine you, the DM, could decide at any point in a character's career to offer the player an option -- to enter a new class, a prestige class, with abilities appropriate to your setting, your game, and your player's vision for the character.

Use published PrCs as examples for your own classes, not as fixtures you must accommodate.

[Telok]

All the custom PrCs I built for my games required 1 useful & common feat (avoiding feats with their own prereq chains) that the character would want, required ranks in 1of two skills that naturally fit the class, required 1 class ability related to the PrCs function, required 1 fluff thing important to the organization that taught the PrC. They were all 5 levels long, advanced most class abilities most levels, and tied their new abilities to character level. Very few official published PrCs were that way.

So one was a sort of army commander PrC. It required being in that specific military and swearing a magical loyalty oath, ranks in... kn-tactics or intimidate, don't recall exactly... and leadership feat. On 3/5 levels it progressed your base class, medium BaB, Fort & Will saves, 6+ skill points. It modified leadership to be a military unit and your cohort was a specified build military sub-commander specific to cover boring details and be a back line combat assist, in return leadership lost a lot of fiddly bits & worry about recruiting/maintaining the followers, plus gave a decent scaling morale/loyalty boost. Gave access to White Raven Tactics at levels 2 & 4 (1 stance, 2 known, 1 ready each time, plus warblade recharge) because the ToB stuff scaled decently. And added a set of improving actions that gave your troops bonuses in combat. I think the first one was you could have your troops & allies ready to "follow orders" and you did a standard action to give an order, they all did that thing (including partial charges) with a +1/3rd your level bonus on their first roll and they acted like they had quickdraw if they needed to pull out a weapon. There was a interrupt that gave your guys a scaling bonus on a save, AC, or let them set to receive a charge with the scaling bonus to hit. I think the last one was something like a 1/fight mass WRT to lots of allies in medium range or something.

Generally tried to make it so that you took a 2 or 3 level hit to main class abilities but the PrC powers would be good if you got in at 5th to 10th and still good if you ended at 10th to 15th. Never gave stuff that boosted numbers, always things that took actions but made it so you wanted to take the actions. Tricky bit was trying to make things a side-grade for casters that they'd be willing to do instead of a spell, and an upgrade for mundanes but not so much that they'd only ever spam it.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

You could always move over to Pathfinder, where archetypes help customize characters and PrCs are mostly useless

[Kurald Galain]

In order to make use of even a single prestige class, you have to plan out your progression at least to the point of entry. Leaving aside that you do, unfortunately, have to do this anyway because of how many terrible options have been included in this edition, it dictates your character's destiny from the very beginning.

Yep. This is why I find Pathfinder's class archetypes to be a better approach.

[Fizban]

If the prerequisites aren't something a person who would want the class would naturally take, they're bad prerequisites. If you read a Prestige Class and go "oh, that sounds cool!", and starting thinking of a character and go to check the prerequisites, you should have met them already just by thinking about it- and if the concept is so rigid you need a very specific sort of build to get in, then the class should not have special appeal to anyone outside of that build. Prestige Classes are not supposed to be about frontloading "payment" of bad feats and wasted skill ranks in exchange for more power than you would normally get later. They're supposed to be interesting.

Blackguard is one of the worst examples. It's a full BAB class, but it does grant sneak attack, so requiring some ranks of Hide is appropriate (though it does delay entry a smidge unless you're say a Ranger). But Blackguard has nothing to do with sundering, cleaving, or even power attacking- it's a 10 level anti-Paladin with some sneak attack. If anything, the second requirement beyond 5 ranks in Hide should be "proficiency with all martial weapons" or even "all martial weapons and all armor," in order to account for the Blackguard's presumed martial bent (this would force Rangers into needing a dip to avoid a 1 level delay as well, evening things up).

Justicar is again what looks to be aimed as a BAB 6/rogue dip 7th level entry class (the class being a sort of full BAB with sneak attack, but only nonlethal, and some mild grappling stuff). It has a feat tax in Skill Focus: Gather Info, but only in the sense that I imagine most players (or even DMs) barely know what the skill does. But if you do, then +3 on a flat skill DC just means you're that much closer to never-failing- if anything the problem here is that a NPC investigator would take it at 1st level, while a player would delay taking it if they could. Or you can change it to a later printed Urban Tracking feat, at which point the entry is supremely clear: unlike a simple Ranger who knows one style of tracking, a Justicar is so dedicated they've learned both- and any character with comprehensive tracking ability can enter.

Some PrCs are written solely for the purpose of housing some ability that is not appropriate for a feat, spell, or base class, and those PrCs need to make sure that their unique abilities are not overpowered or come with appropriate tradeoffs (that they often enough fail miserably because their great ideas are fundamentally broken, is obvious). This is then used to justify "feat taxes," which then cause other things to include them even when they shouldn't.


Another major problem regarding a more natural entry of characters into PrCs, is the "5th level standard entry." Except for many martial PrCs it's actually 7th level standard entry. Or for the Blackguard and Justicar, it's BAB 6, so a possible 6th entry. The point is: even a low-int character can suddenly gain half a dozen skill ranks in a single level by going Rogue, and a single feat is not an insufferable barrier- but you get your feat at 6th level, not 5th. But since caster PrCs called for 3rd level spells, all other PrCs started moving to 5th level entries, and that means the last guaranteed feat you gain is back at 3rd level.

If your PrC requires one out of the ordinary feat and a handful of skill points and has "6th level entry," then a character doesn't need to "know" they're going to take it until they're 5th level, then boom next level they dip X for skills and assign their 6th level feat and then enter the class "on time" (I put "on time" in air quotes because in-character there should be no such thing, but for player-side mechanics it is perfectly fine to have an expected level to pick up a certain ability, and having PrCs clustering around certain entry points should be positive if done right).

Alternatively, if you allow aggressive retraining rules, a character that wants to take a PrC they've later become aware of need simply put in the time and effort training.

Or you can just throw out PrC prerequisites entirely. If the PrCs themselves are fine, then they should be fine regardless. I would normally say this would hurt verisimilitude, but if you're finding the prerequisites harmful of your verisimilitude rather than enhancing it, then. . .

[Morty]

Another major issue with PrCs is that there's no consistency to what they are or should be. Some are just better versions of existing classes, like Archmage. Some plug holes in the system - Duelist covers for how it's impossible to play such a character effectively with base rules (not that it's possible with Duelist) and Eldtritch Knight or Mystic Theurge address the problems with multiclassing spellcasters. And then some are out-there concepts that can't be covered by regular classes, like Dragon Disciple or Shadow Dancer.

The last two are arguably the kind of thing PrCs are meant for, but they're still hit by the lack of direction of what PrCs should give and what they should take away in purely mechanical terms. PrCs in splatbooks continue this trend, with most of them being chaff no one will look at twice, some overpowered ones and some other few being mostly balanced options when approached properly.

[Bronk]

Take a look at what the core rules say about prestige classes (DMG, p.176):

I tend to make my own, or spruce existing ones up as well. I'll add bonus feats, feats I want people to have, a bunch of supernatural abilities to round them off, and they always extend their original class features.



Some PrCs are written solely for the purpose of housing some ability that is not appropriate for a feat, spell, or base class, and those PrCs need to make sure that their unique abilities are not overpowered or come with appropriate tradeoffs (that they often enough fail miserably because their great ideas are fundamentally broken, is obvious). This is then used to justify "feat taxes," which then cause other things to include them even when they shouldn't.

Another problem is that some PRCs seem to be created specifically for NPCs, and are traps for PCs. One example is Blighter, which nerfs a druid hard, yet would be great for a DM to throw in as a quick evil opponent.

[aglondier]

My pet peeve relating to prestige classes is for arcane spellcasters. Sure a casting PrC adds additional spellcasting levels, but they all specifically deny you additional spells known. Rough for a wizard, but downright disastrous for a sorceror...

Thanks for the idea of custom prcs advancing base class features. Will definitely incorporate that into future campaigns.

[Nifft]

My pet peeve relating to prestige classes is for arcane spellcasters. Sure a casting PrC adds additional spellcasting levels, but they all specifically deny you additional spells known. Rough for a wizard, but downright disastrous for a sorceror...

I thought that was just early weirdness (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EarlyInstallmentWeirdness) from the DMG and XPH, not a general problem across all publications.

Usually I see language like this:


Spellcasting: At each level above 1st, you gain new spells per day and an increase in caster level (and spells known, if applicable) as if you had also gained a level in a spellcasting class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level.

[StSword]

Yeah, that's why I liked the approach in Alternate paths prestige classes takes to prestige classes, makes them far more organic.

1- Get rid of any requirements that aren't actually essential to the basis of the class.

2- Make the attribute the prestige classes use be variable to avoid making characters MAD.

3- Replaces class progressions with groundwork feats.

So say if you want a ranger to get into Arcane archer and progress their divine spellcasting, go right ahead.

[gijoemike]

I have never played what I am about to propose, and it may be a disaster....

I too hate that one must plan skills, feats, class progression for PrC entry starting at level 1. It makes it so it takes 3 or 4 hours to build a lvl 1 character. In reality I have built out most of a lvl 2,3,4,...11,12 character. So I propose the following.


Leave off all feat requirements for all prestige classes. Upon taking the first level of the PrC the character gets retraining for their feats and now matches the feats of the Prc. If the PC doesn't actually have enough feats slots they are forced to take the remaining prereq feats on the next level up. They cannot leave the PrC until all the prereq feats are taken.


The idea is your new associates of the same prestige as you help you learn the way of X (Blackguard, Temple Raider, Blighter). This greatly helps the planning game.

[Quertus]

Yeah, prestige classes certainly have issues - including not representing dynamic growth well.

Once, I tried creating custom prestige classes on the fly, to represent what the character was *actually* learning. I might try it again some day.

[Maat Mons]

I kind of like how prestige classes ditch the (unnecessary and restrictive) notion that classes need to be any uniform length. I also kind of like how they ditch the (unnecessary and restrictive) idea that the first level of every class has to be appropriate power-wise for a 1st-level character.

If you have a concept for a class that simply isn't robust enough to spread out across 20 level (like Fighter), you can just make a class that's say, 4 to 6 levels long.

And if you have a class whose whole identity is, let's say "I turn into a bear," and doing that is inappropriate for a low-level character, you can just make a prestige class called "Druid," or something, that can be taken at 5th level, at the earliest, and gives you the ability to turn into a bear at the 1st level of the class. Instead of, say, making a "turn into a bear" class that doesn't actually give the ability to turn into a bear until the 5th level of the class.

So yeah, prestige classes could totally be a great addition to the system. But the level-gating should just be direct, e.g. "Prerequisite: Character level 4th or higher." And any other prereqs should only exist if the class would literally make no sense without them.

[NigelWalmsley]

Prestige classes are definitely a design can be improved. It doesn't help that by the end of the edition, we were spending multiple pages on concepts like Spinemeld Warrior or Bereft, which I am entirely unconvinced have ever seen the light of day. Both 4e's Paragon Paths and PF's archetypes are superior in at least some respects, and I would not at all fault you for reducing or eliminating non-level prerequisites (though some of the pain can also be eliminated by giving people a more reasonable number of feats, which is probably a change you should also make).

My personal pet peeve is the fact that Theurge classes only last ten levels, despite the fact that there's very obviously nowhere else you're going to go afterwards. Why the hell is my Binder 1/Wizard 3/Anima Mage 10 forced to abandon their character concept just for hitting 15th level? Also, while I approve of PrCs having fluff in general, the fact that things like the Ruby Knight Vindicator are written at such a stupidly high level of specificity pisses me off. Like, really, the natural conclusion for "I want to combine Divine Magic with a Martial Adept" is "I am specifically a Cleric/Crusader or Paladin/Crusader who worships Wee Jas and has a Stealth subtheme (despite all of those classes having heavy armor and none of them having Hide)". You couldn't write a generic class and then explain that some of them are Knight Vindicators while others are Druid/Warblades that use Tiger Claw maneuvers while Wild Shape'd into an actual Tiger?

[Elves]

Agree that feat and skill reqs should be universally deleted. Most class feature reqs should be deleted too. Entry level is a fair and necessary limiter but should be explicit rather than through skill ranks by proxy.

As for players planning their builds ahead...I don't see how removing PRCs or PRC reqs solves this. There will always be optimal vs inoptimal builds and those who care will plan ahead to make their char effective.

I guess you could say PRC reqs force players who aren't normally into that stuff to do it, but PRCs are optional -- IME "casuals" are perfectly happy to play a barbarian 20, not hunting online for the best builds.

My point is that the people who are planning their future progress tend to be the ones who enjoy doing it.


My personal pet peeve is the fact that Theurge classes only last ten levels, despite the fact that there's very obviously nowhere else you're going to go afterwards.
Evidently they felt 17:18 progression was overpowered and I kind of agree. Loss of class features can be a balancer, though the problem with that is for a theurge to be cool you want to give them class features that create synergy between the two ability sets.

[NigelWalmsley]

Evidently they felt 17:18 progression was overpowered and I kind of agree. Loss of class features can be a balancer, though the problem with that is for a theurge to be cool you want to give them class features that create synergy between the two ability sets.

I don't really buy that. The intended entry for Theurges seems to be 3/3, which means you only ever get 9th level abilities at 20th level, even if you get full progression on both sides starting from 7th. If either side if your build is a spontaneous caster, you just never get them at all.

[gijoemike]

Agree that feat and skill reqs should be universally deleted. Most class feature reqs should be deleted too. Entry level is a fair and necessary limiter but should be explicit rather than through skill ranks by proxy.

As for players planning their builds ahead...I don't see how removing PRCs or PRC reqs solves this. There will always be optimal vs inoptimal builds and those who care will plan ahead to make their char effective.

I guess you could say PRC reqs force players who aren't normally into that stuff to do it, but PRCs are optional -- IME "casuals" are perfectly happy to play a barbarian 20, not hunting online for the best builds.

My point is that the people who are planning their future progress tend to be the ones who enjoy doing it.


Evidently they felt 17:18 progression was overpowered and I kind of agree. Loss of class features can be a balancer, though the problem with that is for a theurge to be cool you want to give them class features that create synergy between the two ability sets.

Casual players don't just say Fighter 20 or Rogue 20 is fine by me. Most laid back players pick 1 PrC and shoot for that. a give casual player could say in session 0 after having given their character 10 seconds of thought I want to be a elven follower of Corellon Larethian who rides around the world on a unicorn and heals the wounded. They see the PrC Hospitaler and they go for a Paladin 5/Hosp++ build.

But here is the issue. They only get a feat at level 1 and 3 prior to entry. That is mounted combat and ride by which are the prereqs. So a completely casual traveling elven healer has to be planned out from level 1 to 6. That is a hard sell to a lite player.

[Elves]

I don't really buy that. The intended entry for Theurges seems to be 3/3, which means you only ever get 9th level abilities at 20th level, even if you get full progression on both sides starting from 7th. If either side if your build is a spontaneous caster, you just never get them at all.

In practice the advantage is mitigated but in principle endpoint has to be considered. Otherwise you get a lesser version of the truenamer problem.

My mystic theurge solution would be more of a hybrid. Say wiz/clr, you get both domain and specialist slots and can prepare clr spells in your wiz slots up to your max spell level -1 or -2.

Re thread topic
I'm personally not a fan of a paragon path style solution where PRC benefits are layered on top of base class benefits. That's one more thing to layer on top and remember, and outside the class level system that's supposed to be fundamental. But I can see slotting PRCs into the base class table -- basically, high-level subclasses.

[Quertus]

As for players planning their builds ahead...I don't see how removing PRCs or PRC reqs solves this. There will always be optimal vs inoptimal builds and those who care will plan ahead to make their char effective.

I guess you could say PRC reqs force players who aren't normally into that stuff to do it, but PRCs are optional -- IME "casuals" are perfectly happy to play a barbarian 20, not hunting online for the best builds.

My point is that the people who are planning their future progress tend to be the ones who enjoy doing it.

The concern over the inability to grow organically, and to *enjoy* the fluffy experience of Prestige Classes is not the domain of those who enjoy the build minigame.


Re thread topic
I'm personally not a fan of a paragon path style solution where PRC benefits are layered on top of base class benefits. That's one more thing to layer on top and remember, and outside the class level system that's supposed to be fundamental. But I can see slotting PRCs into the base class table -- basically, high-level subclasses.

In theory, I'm a fan of this approach.

In practice, I'd like an 18th level character to be able to join and gain benefit from a 3rd level organization.

[Morphic tide]

I personally think that Skill and Feat requirements are a very good idea, failed by the fact that 3.5 handles the two absurdly. Nobody would bat an eye at a PRC asking for Two Weapon Fighting or Heighten Spell or Combat Reflexes, those are all one feat deep and actually useful, if somewhat marginally for Heighten Spell. The likes of Spring Attack, Toughness, or Weapon Focus, however, do not do well. Using skill rank prerequisites would be fine if the devs hadn't stuck basic game functions in them eating away at the precious few that Martials get to begin with. Of course, this makes Spot, Listen, Bluff, Ride, and Tumble, and to a lesser extent Hide, Move Silently, Escape Artist, and Sense Motive, all actually workable skill prerequisites in the game as written, because you're liable to pick up those skills with characters on track to certain playstyles. The same goes for pretty much any feat you get to use it.

PF1e has an interesting relationship to this problem, because it practically fixes the skill problem by both gutting the requirement skills and raising the skills players get, on top of mitigating the feat problem with every odd level instead of 1st + every 3rd... And then Pazio decided to use this basically never because they chose to print a massive pile of archetypes instead of using Prestige Class mechanics to cover numerous classes entering a mid-level character concept.

[Elves]

re 2 posts above --

Yeah the PF archetypes are kind of a mess. And I think it refers to what I said above about limiting the number of things to layer on. Someone made a post recently about their experience bringing new players to PF and it's not pretty.

Remember that 4e with its paths and 5e with its subclasses both did away with multiclassing as we know it in 3e. A 3e solution has to be rooted in class levels. I don't think a paragon path/"organization benefits" style solution is desirable. A subclass/archetype style solution could work. Means multiclassing becomes less free, but maybe that needs to be the case anyway.

[Falontani]

Yep. This is why I find Pathfinder's class archetypes to be a better approach.

I honestly disagree, and I think the pathfinder archetypes are the main reason that I dislike pathfinder. (although I still much prefer pathfinder to 4E or 5E)

I agree that it can be annoying having prerequisites in the way of certain advancement options, however my favorite part about 3.5 is the character creation minigame. Followed by combat. Followed by roleplaying.

The problem that I have with Archetypes, and the other editions, is simply, there is no difficulty in creating your character. To me, this means that the character isn't worth anything. If I can create a character in 20 minutes, then I have no investment in the character. By the time I quit 5E I could have a level 8 character generated in 5 minutes, and it took me 30 seconds to a minute to pull an appropriate backstory out of my rear end. It took me the longest time to write the character down on a character sheet and name the character. I had so little investment in the character that I literally yawned when my character died. Combined with 5e's adventure league having me start a new character every 3-4 weeks, join a different group with my current character every other week; I just couldn't become invested in the character. In pathfinder it takes me longer to create a character, about an hour. This is mainly due to me not knowing the system as well, and having to comb through a couple hundred archetypes to find the character that I want to play. Not create a character I want to play, find it. Splitting off from the archetype generally makes the character weaker rather than more robust, more well rounded, or even more powerful. So once I lock in as a Hedge Witch, that is what I am playing. A Hedge Witch. Sure my class features lend itself well to playing a hedge witch, but trying to evolve the character down the line into something not a hedge witch isn't something that is viable.

In 3.5 you start as a wizard with craft alchemy. Level 3 you take brew potion. I am now a hedge witch. With a single message to the DM I say, I need to meet this Special prerequisite by level 9. DM crafts the special prerequisite into the story, and by level 9 I have died and returned to life in order for my character to evolve into a Blood Magus. With the character creation minigame, you can figure out where you want to start, and where you want to end. I want to start as an apprentice witch, and eventually become a hedge witch myself. From here I learn about the darker forces of magic, and become a blood witch. Fully embracing this path I eventually decide that the way to advance my craft is to become a Master Vampire, thus I seek out a vampire, make a deal, and become reborn a Vampire Blood Witch. I create my own coven of Blood Witches and invite the most promising to life eternal as vampires, enabling me to become a Grand Vampire Blood Witch. Finally, dozens of years after the campaign has begun I am a powerful vampire spellcaster with a coven of Blood Witches and I can progress towards becoming the most powerful Blood Witch there is, by defeating the sun itself and becoming a Vampire Lord. This character idea takes several hours in order to make, requires sacrificing delicate crafting, and makes me become invested with the character, before Day 1 of the campaign. If my hedge wizard is killed and tossed aside I am sad, but also grateful to have been able to play this character. It makes casual loss of character devastating, but unless your DM tells you from the beginning that you are playing a character grinder campaign, this shouldn't happen.

Making it easier to travel the path of the character would make it less traumatic if the character dies, carry less emotional weight, and make it so I don't care as much. This might be due to the fact that roleplay is not the thing that I love about the game the most, but its how I play.

[Crake]

Take a look at what the core rules say about prestige classes (DMG, p.176):

(emphasis added)

Imagine a world where players don't look at splatbooks like shopping catalogs and don't see published PrCs as their best and only choices.

Imagine you, the DM, could decide at any point in a character's career to offer the player an option -- to enter a new class, a prestige class, with abilities appropriate to your setting, your game, and your player's vision for the character.

Use published PrCs as examples for your own classes, not as fixtures you must accommodate.

Preach! Some of the most fun I've had as a DM was making flavourful and setting-appropriate prestige classes rather than trying to adapt existing lore-driven ones.

[Morty]

Whether or not this was the original intention, PrCs seem to have become one of 3E's clunky and unsuccessful attempts to be "flexible" and "customizable" - which wound up trying to bypass its original concept of using classes and levels.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem that I have with Archetypes, and the other editions, is simply, there is no difficulty in creating your character. To me, this means that the character isn't worth anything. If I can create a character in 20 minutes, then I have no investment in the character.
Well there's still multiclassing (in PF and 5E) as well as feat/spell selection (in PF and 4E). I find that archetypes hit a good middle ground where you can spend a lot of time creating a character, but you don't have to.

[Morty]

The main difference between archetypes or subclasses and PrCs is consistency. Archetypes replace class features. Subclasses give their features at the same level for every class and are obligatory. Which isn't to say it works all that well, especially in PF - but it's still more grounded than PrCs, which don't have much in terms of a standard of how much they should give and what prerequisites are appropriate.

[Elves]

Whether or not this was the original intention, PrCs seem to have become one of 3E's clunky and unsuccessful attempts to be "flexible" and "customizable" - which wound up trying to bypass its original concept of using classes and levels.
What's clunky about it? Do you just mean it will never be as flexible as a points/a la carte system?

[Xervous]

What's clunky about it? Do you just mean it will never be as flexible as a points/a la carte system?

I’m guessing it’s because the value add is all over the place with combinations from “bricks the character” to “bricks the campaign” to “ackshually one of the few ways to make a respectable monk.”

Trust me, the monk bit ain’t no joke.

[Kurald Galain]

What's clunky about it? Do you just mean it will never be as flexible as a points/a la carte system?

If you start at low level, it's hardly fun if your first three feats have to be something completely useless to get special prestige abilities at a (sometimes much) higher level... and you have to hope that your campaign will even get to that level in the first place.

[Troacctid]

I think prestige classes as a quest reward are much less interesting and fun than prestige classes as a character-building tool. 3.5e's greatest strength is the incredible level of customizability in its character creation—for a lot of people, that's why you're playing this edition in the first place, rather than moving on to 5e! Prestige classes are a big part of that. Just because some of them are poorly designed doesn't mean they're not a good mechanic.

As for feat slot timing awkwardness, that's what retraining is for.

[NigelWalmsley]

If you start at low level, it's hardly fun if your first three feats have to be something completely useless to get special prestige abilities at a (sometimes much) higher level... and you have to hope that your campaign will even get to that level in the first place.

Well, that's not a problem with PrCs so much as a problem with pre-reqs and the absurdly tiny number of feats people get. If you get four feats in a campaign (given how long many campaigns last, this might be an over-estimate), you don't want one of them to be "Skill Focus (Gather Information)" for any reason, let alone because it will eventually let you take a PrC you don't finish.


As for feat slot timing awkwardness, that's what retraining is for.

That seems like a classic example of adding epicycles to fix a problem rather than actually fixing the problem.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, that's not a problem with PrCs so much as a problem with pre-reqs
I'd say a problem with PrCs is that (too) many of them have highly impractical prereqs.

Retraining would help if it were a standard rule, but unfortunately it's not. I have never played with a 3E GM who allowed retraining.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'd say a problem with PrCs is that (too) many of them have highly impractical prereqs.

I mean, so do a lot of feats. There are plenty of feats out there that require the various terrible PHB feats, or have absurdly long pre-req chains. It's just that we ignore them, because it's implicitly understood that they're impossible to use, and most of them aren't very interesting even if you could get them on a practical timescale. PrCs live at an unfortunate nexus of being difficult-but-not-impossible to get while being interesting enough to be tempting.


Retraining would help if it were a standard rule, but unfortunately it's not. I have never played with a 3E GM who allowed retraining.

That is also true. I myself would be much more likely to wave PrC pre-reqs entirely than to allow people to retrain around them. The latter simply feels much more like abusing the rules.

[Elves]

Well, that's not a problem with PrCs so much as a problem with pre-reqs and the absurdly tiny number of feats people get.

Every 3 levels isn't bad if you remove feat prereqs from both PRCs and feats (and make feats as a rule more significant). 7 choices to define a character is about at the memory level.

Every 2 levels is the limit and already a little much. Seems to demand slightly smaller feats.


"More significant" doesn't have to mean higher word count. The Tactical feats were an attempt to make them more meaty but 3 options is way too much to read and usually only 1 is good.

As an aside, my Skill Focus rewrite might be "Ability Focus", applying to all ability checks, including skill checks, with a single ability score. Maybe also rolling +saves into that if you go to 6 saves as in 5e.

[Nifft]

Every 3 levels isn't bad if you remove feat prereqs from both PRCs and feats (and make feats as a rule more significant). 7 choices to define a character is about at the memory level.

Every 2 levels is the limit and already a little much. Seems to demand slightly smaller feats.

Actually having 7 feats demands that you play through a rather high level.

"Every 2 levels" might be a concession regarding the infrequency of high-level play.

[Morty]

What's clunky about it? Do you just mean it will never be as flexible as a points/a la carte system?

It'd be more accurate to ask what isn't clunky about PrCs. That said...


I’m guessing it’s because the value add is all over the place with combinations from “bricks the character” to “bricks the campaign” to “ackshually one of the few ways to make a respectable monk.”

Trust me, the monk bit ain’t no joke.


If you start at low level, it's hardly fun if your first three feats have to be something completely useless to get special prestige abilities at a (sometimes much) higher level... and you have to hope that your campaign will even get to that level in the first place.

I agree with both of these statements. But I think the underlying issue is that PrCs tried to introduce open-ended flexibility to a system that is, in its basic assumptions, anything but open-ended or flexible. So they end up awkward clusters of abilities glued onto your character and many of the subsequent problems stem from that.

[NigelWalmsley]

Every 3 levels isn't bad if you remove feat prereqs from both PRCs and feats (and make feats as a rule more significant). 7 choices to define a character is about at the memory level.

Sure, that is an approach you could take. The question is whether that's the approach people want to take. And honestly, I kinda think it isn't. People are already kinda upset about the fact that there are like 30,000 feats and you only get seven.


Every 2 levels is the limit and already a little much. Seems to demand slightly smaller feats.

Why? One feat per level, or even one feat per session seems entirely reasonable. We've already got classes, archetypes, and PrCs to represent major character choices. You need something to represent smaller character choices. Some people are going to want to have characters that are university-educated, or inducted into the secrets of a major religion, or whatever choice doesn't rise to the level of a character class.

[D+1]

But I've been thinking about Prestige Classes lately and I realized I don't like the consequences of how they're implemented.As originally implemented there was nothing wrong with them. Their use was very soon twisted OUTRAGEOUSLY beyond what they were originally envisioned to be which was as a tool FOR THE DM to use to personalize their game worlds. When players started treating them as power-up candy, and DM's utterly failed to exercise any control or restraint over their inclusion - that was how they became what they are now. The game itself didn't implement them badly - the players and runners of the games completely disregarded how the game clearly said to implement them.

The solution is to once again treat them just as they were originally implemented by the game itself. They aren't tools for players to build ever-better PC's. They are tools for DM's to build more detailed game settings that players can buy into THROUGH having their PC's enter one of the SELECTIVELY PERMITTED prestige classes.

[Fizban]

The game itself didn't implement them badly - the players and runners of the games completely disregarded how the game clearly said to implement them.
Well, until the writers of the game jumped on board.

As can be seen in the progression from the 3.0 splats to the early 3.5 splats to the late 3.5 splats, where you go from things like Spellsword (half casting/full BAB, channel spell 1/day) or Blood Magus (half casting, a couple Su abilities equivalent to 7th or 8th level spells, most important feature is paying hp to ignore gp components at 1st), to Abjurant Champion (full casting/full BAB, plus free quickened abjurations, plus bonuses to 1st level spell AC so huge they invalidate armor completely, and throw in some more stuff), or Ordained Champion (how about we give the Cleric a better version of the Paladin's smite, plus the vest version of channel spell ever printed with infinite use, plus yet more free quickened spells, oh an again just throw in some more stuff after that?)

"The game" kinda screwed "itself" there. Even if the problem PrCs were all special in-game organizations for world-building and whatnot, they would either make overpowered NPCs, or cause a massive power jump for the first PC to bother taking one which would immediately pivot into everyone wanting an uber-PrC of their own. And you can't actually expect people to not use the material you're publishing.

[Elves]

You need something to represent smaller character choices. Some people are going to want to have characters that are university-educated, or inducted into the secrets of a major religion, or whatever choice doesn't rise to the level of a character class.

Feats suffered from trying to be both the flavor abilities and the major axis of mechanical distinction besides class level. Maybe it's worth separating them. I'm not a big fan of a backgrounds mechanic but it's possible. Or maybe the ribbon abilities are bought with skill points to prevent it from being a whole other thing. You already get those every level.

[Vaern]

Take a look at what the core rules say about prestige classes (DMG, p.176):

(emphasis added)

Imagine a world where players don't look at splatbooks like shopping catalogs and don't see published PrCs as their best and only choices.

Imagine you, the DM, could decide at any point in a character's career to offer the player an option -- to enter a new class, a prestige class, with abilities appropriate to your setting, your game, and your player's vision for the character.

Use published PrCs as examples for your own classes, not as fixtures you must accommodate.
This. There are countless instances throughout the entirety of the system where the books strongly encourage homebrew and house rule solutions to make the game a better experience for your group, because the designers are aware that some players are going to find some aspects of their system as-is dissatisfying or tedious.
I don't think prerequisites should be entirely wiped off the slate, but I don't think a prestige class should require skills or abilities as a prerequisite that don't contribute anything to the class. For example, iirc, sublime chord is locked behind ranks of listen. It makes sense for the class to require perform since it grants music-themed abilities, but nothing about the class other than its requirements involve the listen skill.

[Fouredged Sword]

If I was to rebuild 3.5 I would have what I call Prestige Lines that are granted at 6th, 12th, and 18th level respectively and would grant a chain of class features alongside the character's normal progression for the next 6 levels with the one at 18th being a capstone line that is very powerful but only 2 levels long.

Level 1-6 would be class driven.
Level 7-12 would be Class + Prestige Line
Levels 12-18 would be Class + Prestige Line 2
Levels 19 and 20 would be Class + Capstone.

Strip down Prestige classes to class features that are actually features, not just progressing the features of another class. Staple them onto the side of the class the character is actually taking.

[Kurald Galain]

Level 1-6 would be class driven.
Level 7-12 would be Class + Prestige Line
Levels 12-18 would be Class + Prestige Line 2

That's basically what 4E does. I find that its "first prestige line" does very well (due to getting some highly visible and effective powers early), but its "second prestige line" tends to fall flat.

[Elves]

If I was to rebuild 3.5 I would have what I call Prestige Lines that are granted at 6th, 12th, and 18th level respectively and would grant a chain of class features alongside the character's normal progression for the next 6 levels with the one at 18th being a capstone line that is very powerful but only 2 levels long.

Level 1-6 would be class driven.
Level 7-12 would be Class + Prestige Line
Levels 12-18 would be Class + Prestige Line 2
Levels 19 and 20 would be Class + Capstone.


I like the 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20 tiers personally. Then 21-30.



Strip down Prestige classes to class features that are actually features, not just progressing the features of another class. Staple them onto the side of the class the character is actually taking.
4e's "PRCs/EDs as overlay templates" worked cleanly because they had done away with traditional multiclassing. If you staple it on top of 3.5's free multiclassing, it becomes crowded design. Something that's more in harmony with it, which I mentioned above, might be slotting a PRC's "special" column into the class table of a base class.

[King of Nowhere]

That is also true. I myself would be much more likely to wave PrC pre-reqs entirely than to allow people to retrain around them. The latter simply feels much more like abusing the rules.

+1 on that. i let people skip prerequisites if the prerequisites are annoying.

[skunk3]

1. Prestige classes are not required

2. There's so many prestige classes to pick from that surely there has to be something you'd want

3. You can make your own prestige classes as long as they are sensible and balanced

4. You can houserule any changes to practically anything

5. ToB classes in particular allow people to play various melee archetypes without prestige classes, and many classes have similar options


I think that the entry requirements for many prestige classes are dumb and it doesn't hurt the game at all to amend those prerequisites.

[Gnaeus]

Another problem is that some PRCs seem to be created specifically for NPCs, and are traps for PCs. One example is Blighter, which nerfs a druid hard, yet would be great for a DM to throw in as a quick evil opponent.

Why is that a problem? That seems like a feature. One of 3.PF’s selling points is that the DM and players are basically using the same legos. And if you make an NPC PRC about making pies and the PC decides that he wants to make pies too, knowing that pie making doesn’t lead to wild adventuring success, that’s fine. I don’t see a lot of players nerfing themselves accidentally with odd PRCs.

The bigger problem is stuff like Sarrukh which are created specifically for NPCs and are overpowered when the PC finds a way to access them.

[Crake]

Why is that a problem? That seems like a feature. One of 3.PF’s selling points is that the DM and players are basically using the same legos. And if you make an NPC PRC about making pies and the PC decides that he wants to make pies too, knowing that pie making doesn’t lead to wild adventuring success, that’s fine. I don’t see a lot of players nerfing themselves accidentally with odd PRCs.

The bigger problem is stuff like Sarrukh which are created specifically for NPCs and are overpowered when the PC finds a way to access them.

I imagine it's a problem when a player picks up the prc and then about 5 sessions later realizes they bricked their character.

[Nifft]

Why is that a problem? That seems like a feature. One of 3.PF’s selling points is that the DM and players are basically using the same legos.

This is one of the Big Lies which any non-casual examination will expose.

Monsters have NPC gear; PCs have WBL. These are different.

Monsters have CR; PCs have ECL. These are very different.

Monsters have "add abilities as necessary or desired"; PCs have actual rules. These are even more different.


PCs and NPCs have comparable basic stats, but the legos change shape in arbitrary ways whenever a DM touches them. DMs and players do not use the same blocks.

[Quertus]

This is one of the Big Lies which any non-casual examination will expose.

Monsters have NPC gear; PCs have WBL. These are different.

Monsters have CR; PCs have ECL. These are very different.

Monsters have "add abilities as necessary or desired"; PCs have actual rules. These are even more different.


PCs and NPCs have comparable basic stats, but the legos change shape in arbitrary ways whenever a DM touches them. DMs and players do not use the same blocks.

Let's do that non-casual examination.

-----

"Monsters have NPC gear; PCs have WBL. These are different."

At a glance, you would seem correct.

Upon closer examination, however, PCs have however much wealth they have. The game may be geared and balanced towards a certain level of wealth, but it is not mandated by the rules.

A 19th level Dragon PC and a Dragon NPC monster are, by RAW, expected (but not mandated) to have different amounts of treasure. Granted. But, much like characters in point buy being built with different numbers of points, they are *still* using those points to buy the *same* Legos.

And, when I run the game, I aim to explicitly give them the same number of points when building them from scratch.

-----

"Monsters have CR; PCs have ECL. These are very different."

In PvP, PCs have CR. When a monster joins the party, it generally gets an ECL (it needs one in 3.0).

So, unless you're referring to wealth calculations, this doesn't exactly hold: you calculate these values as needed for either. The only difference is how likely you are to need each.

------

"Monsters have "add abilities as necessary or desired"; PCs have actual rules. These are even more different."

Citation needed. Are you sure that this isn't just bad GMing practices here? I don't remember the DMG saying, "add a 20d8 breath weapon to your kobolds if you feel like it" or "ignore initiative - let the monsters take turns at whatever arbitrary points you want". :smallconfused:

-----

"PCs and NPCs have comparable basic stats, but the legos change shape in arbitrary ways whenever a DM touches them. DMs and players do not use the same blocks."

As I've said many times before, if the GM is going to put in the effort to warp the shape of one of the Legos, it should be to make the *PCs* cool and special, not wasted on their glorified set pieces.

-----

I'm not sure that your stance holds to more than a cursory observation.

[Gnaeus]

I imagine it's a problem when a player picks up the prc and then about 5 sessions later realizes they bricked their character.

I doubt it. I mean I totally buy picking up monk and not understanding as a new player that slow fall isn’t one decent class ability, let alone half a dozen. There are lots of ways to nerf yourself in 3.5. But I seriously doubt there are a lot of players who play through Druid 5 and then read the class that gives up all their class abilities and think “oh that’s a good idea”.

[Telok]

"Monsters have "add abilities as necessary or desired"; PCs have actual rules. These are even more different."

Citation needed. Are you sure that this isn't just bad GMing practices here? I don't remember the DMG saying, "add a 20d8 breath weapon to your kobolds if you feel like it" or "ignore initiative - let the monsters take turns at whatever arbitrary points you want".

Really it's more along the lines of something like giving them an ad hoc custom +40 "improved improved initative" feat, several levels of wizard that you decide don't add to CR, a caster level boosting item that only works for that monster race + alignment + needs ranks in forgery climb and kn:religion, and spend all the npc wealth on scrolls of dmm:widened forcecage or +20 CL boosted unholy word.

One thing I always did was give the awesome blow feat as a racial feat to all large size+ drahond and giants. No pc rules involved, just customizing monsters.

[King of Nowhere]

I imagine it's a problem when a player picks up the prc and then about 5 sessions later realizes they bricked their character.

they made retraining rules exactly for that reason.

[Crake]

they made retraining rules exactly for that reason.

Rebuilding is a whole extra set of hoops to jump through (retraining itself doesn't do class levels), and even rebuilding doesn't remove your ex-druid status.

[Nifft]

I'm not sure that your stance holds to more than a cursory observation.

You gave a few circular arguments and did some hand-waving about how the DM could change what the players get.

Sure, if the DM mutates the PC legos, then the PCs get different legos.

But that's my point: the DM can and does mutate the legos. Players cannot do this.

Players have rules to build the PCs; DMs have guidelines, and can change arbitrary features or add arbitrary abilities. Players cannot do this.

PvP just breaks the game. If you enjoy it, power to you, but if so you're not playing in a way the rules can support.


If that post was your refutation, then my point stands.

[Quertus]

PvP just breaks the game. If you enjoy it, power to you, but if so you're not playing in a way the rules can support.

Not interested in responding to the rest, as doing so doesn't look fruitful, but… a) no, I personally don't enjoy PvP; b) in what way is PvP not supported by 3e?

[Nifft]

Not interested in responding to the rest, as doing so doesn't look fruitful, but… a) no, I personally don't enjoy PvP; b) in what way is PvP not supported by 3e?

Why aren't you interested in engaging with a fair critique of the entire foundation of your "argument"?

DMs and players do NOT use the same legos to build NPCs and PCs (respectively).

There are many concrete differences -- some of which I listed -- but the fundamental distinction is that the DM can make stuff up without consulting the other players, and is indeed told explicitly to do so.

Admit that truth and I'll move on to the one bit which did catch your fancy.

[Elves]

PCs, NPCs and monsters do share the same chassis in a way they don't in other editions. DMs can create new monsters or modify existing ones but they can also modify classes or create new ones -- that's just a function of DM/player power differential.

[Nifft]

PCs, NPCs and monsters do share the same chassis in a way they don't in other editions. DMs can create new monsters or modify existing ones but they can also modify classes or create new ones -- that's just a function of DM/player power differential.

The chassis means different things, though, when it crosses the to the other side of the DM's screen.

NPCs don't care about LA (until they switch sides to join the PCs and are immediately hit by the rules difference); HD aren't the same as levels for the purpose of CR, but they are for ECL; and so on.

There is also a differential in power, but that's separate from how the core game rules apply differently to monsters and PCs.