4th Ed: Prestige Classes are Dead

[Person_Man]

So, according to widespread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=963596) rumors (http://www.enworld.org/) about the Races and Classes preview, Prestige classes will not exist in 4th Ed. Instead, base classes will have Paragon Paths (Levels 11-20) and Epic Paths (21-30).

What effect will this have? I don't know. But I can guess.

1) The very common build of Whatever 5/PrC X/PrC Y is now dead. With the exception of Druid, there really wasn't much of a reason to stay in a base class. Now everyone will stay in a base class throughout your entire progression. But presumably everyone needs to choose a Path at some point. So in essence, everyone has to go into a PrC, but the progression looks like Base 10/Path 10/Path 10. Not sure why they did this.

2) Multi-classing will need a huge overhaul. They've already said that they were going to do this anyway. But I'm still not sure what a workable and balanced multi-class system would look like. For example, if you go Wizard 5/Rogue 5, can you head into (the presumably more powerful) Paragon Path for Wizard or Rogue at once you hit ECL 11? Or are you prevented from doing so until you get 10 levels of one or the other?

3) Splat books will be very different. Now when they publish a new base class, they also have to publish a set of Paths for it. And non-core base classes may end up getting screwed by codex creep, because they may not get nearly as much support in terms of new Paths.

I'm particularly looking forward to people who have played Star Wars Saga at high levels. I've played it at low levels before, but haven't had to deal with Paths yet.

Discuss.

[Grey Watcher]

1) The very common build of Whatever 5/PrC X/PrC Y is now dead. With the exception of Druid, there really wasn't much of a reason to stay in a base class. Now everyone will stay in a base class throughout your entire progression. But presumably everyone needs to choose a Path at some point. So in essence, everyone has to go into a PrC, but the progression looks like Base 10/Path 10/Path 10. Not sure why they did this.

The PrC is dead! Long live the PrC!

Seriously, how are Paths functionally different from PrCs, except that the entry requirements are more restrictive? Seems (like most of 4th edition so far) like change for change's sake.

[Mr. Friendly]

Certainly sounds interesting. I have been getting sick of the whole "So what are you?" and I want to just say fighter or wizard, but need to be clear so I say fighterX/rangerX/PrCX/PrCX/PrCX

The problem of Prestige Classes is they were never very prestigious. Just another class to cram into a build.

[Spiryt]

Well, this in fact sounds quite promissing, some prestige classes were really neat, but this concept also sounds interesting.

Speaking aside optimisation, going Barbarian 20 was literally boring as he had nothing to do about himself besides feats (skill weren't Barb's very strong side).

Those "paths" can be fun.

Any idea how many paths would be available for each class?

[Tengu]

That'll certainly be easier to balance, but I'm afraid it will be harder to make characters unique crunch-wise now. It depends on how many paths, and how many other options will characters be able to choose from.

[Mr. Friendly]

The PrC is dead! Long live the PrC!

Seriously, how are Paths functionally different from PrCs, except that the entry requirements are more restrictive? Seems (like most of 4th edition so far) like change for change's sake.

They are functionally different because having the paths built into the classes means they (should) be more balanced against each other. As it is there are tons of superfluous PrCs out there. Seriously, why choose Eldritch Knight if you can choose Abjurant Champion? There are also a lot of redundant PrCs.

I don't know that this is just change for change's sake... this looks to eliminate the "I have 5 Prestige Classes" characters.

[fendrin]

I think that the problem with PrCs happened in splat books. The Core PrCs are much better, in that you really can't get a ton of power without sacrificing something else.

If the rumors re true about Paths vs. PrCs in 4e, I won't be overly upset. Honestly, though, I'm afraid that we will end up with the same glut that we have in 3.X: so many options that most are discarded.

2e had it's Kits, 3.Xe has it's PrCs, and 4e will have something.

Oh, and I too am interested to know more about multiclassing and how it will affect paths.

[rollfrenzy]

Prestige classes were a great idea, a way to have the specific groups or whatever, but they went horribly horribly awry.

This is another positive thing IMHO about 4th ed.

[Brawls]

Well, I'll reserve judgement until it comes out, but I'm hoping this will allow for more cohesive builds for non-optimizers. If done correctly, I could see this limiting the amount of damage someone can do to their character by making poor choices. Admittedly, I and my group are not ones to excessively multiclass, dip into extra classes, or jump into a number of PrCs. If that is your thing, more power to you. However, I can envision this approach as a way of limiting that type of min/maxing. For my group, I think it will not result in a lot of difference. Hopefully, WotC will make classes like fighter and wizard viable through all 30 levels, meaning that if you just want to play a straight-up fighter, they will be relevant and functional through 30 without the need to take career paths that deviate flavor-wise or be completely overshadowed by one or more particular paths.

Brawls

[Fhaolan]

So... to put this in a pseudo-3.5 terminology... correct me on this one, but what it sounds like is that Base Classes go from 1-10. That's it. Then, to go to 11, you have to go into a Path Class (PrC by another name), that spawns off of the Base Class.

So you can't get to these Path Classes, except by taking 10 levels in the Base Class. And then you go into Epic Path Classes later.

Okay, I'm seeing this. It's different, but it's internally consistent.

My question is do Epic Path Classes branch off of Path Classes, or off the Base Class? For example (totally made up paths for purpose of the example): Level 1-10 Fighter, Level 11-20 Mounted Archer, Level 21-30 Horse Master. Was the character able to take Horse Master at level 21 because of the Mounted Archer path, or could any level 21 Fighter take the Horse Master Epic Path?

One way means Horse Masters will tend to look a lot alike, as they are all Mounted Archers, while the other way means you'll get a lot more combinations at those levels.

Mind you there's nothing stopping them from having Epic Paths that require normal Paths, and other Epic Paths that are don't.

[Person_Man]

If done correctly, I could see this limiting the amount of damage someone can do to their character by making poor choices.

I find that this has actually been much more of a problem then optimizing in the games I've DM'd. The veterans in my group tend not to power game, because they've been there, done that, and now they just want to play something interesting and fun. But the newer players can sometimes make retarded decisions, which puts them at a serious disadvantage.

For example, a Barbarian 4/Fighter 4 with Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and a reach weapon isn't exactly a super optimized build. It can't compare to a full caster that understands how to buff themselves intelligently. But compared to a Sorcerer 3/Bard 5, the Barbarian 4/Fighter 4 is a demi-god. And its very difficult to explain this to a newer player, except to tell them "Trust me, just don't do it."

Hopefully, 4th ed will solve this problem. However, poor feat choice will still nerf newer players. But that's unavoidable, unless you want to remove feats. And no one wants to do that, because its one of the most popular parts of 3rd ed.

[Quietus]

So... to put this in a pseudo-3.5 terminology... correct me on this one, but what it sounds like is that Base Classes go from 1-10. That's it. Then, to go to 11, you have to go into a Path Class (PrC by another name), that spawns off of the Base Class.

So you can't get to these Path Classes, except by taking 10 levels in the Base Class. And then you go into Epic Path Classes later.

Okay, I'm seeing this. It's different, but it's internally consistent.

My question is do Epic Path Classes branch off of Path Classes, or off the Base Class? For example (totally made up paths for purpose of the example): Level 1-10 Fighter, Level 11-20 Mounted Archer, Level 21-30 Horse Master. Was the character able to take Horse Master at level 21 because of the Mounted Archer path, or could any level 21 Fighter take the Horse Master Epic Path?

One way means Horse Masters will tend to look a lot alike, as they are all Mounted Archers, while the other way means you'll get a lot more combinations at those levels.

Mind you there's nothing stopping them from having Epic Paths that require normal Paths, and other Epic Paths that are don't.

That.... is a fantastic point. Hopefully it's the latter, I like that idea much better, but that being said, we'll have to wait for June (or another spoiler) to find out.

[Tormsskull]

Overall I consider this a positive step. While it will undoubtedly take away some options from players, I think that will be better overall as compared to the glut of options in 3.x.

This kind of remind me of the game Vandal Hearts. In that game you started off as one class, and then when you reached a specific level, you could chose to go one way or the other with your advancement. I don't recall the exact names, but as an example, a "fighter" type character had the choice of going the heavy-armored defense way, or the swashbuckling way.

I'd be partial to the Epic Paths building off of the Heroic (11-20) Paths. In that way each of the end-level classes would be quite specific, which is how they should be IMO.

[Crow]

I would rather see the "epic" path branch off of the "paragon" path. Just so we get more options. I'd rather an "Epic Horseman" will look similar to other epic horsemen than all epic-level fighters being contrained to just a few epic paths.

As an aside, I actually liked the 2e-style multi-class method where you had two classes and split xp between the two. It was fun.

Unfortunately, these paths will turn out the same as the prestige classes though. Each new splatbook will introduce new paths, etc...etc... In my opinion, the prestige classes in the DMG are the only ones that uniformly seemed fairly balanced...maybe with the exception of archmage.

[Quietus]

I'd be partial to the Epic Paths building off of the Heroic (11-20) Paths. In that way each of the end-level classes would be quite specific, which is how they should be IMO.

The thing about this is that when you look at how everything fits together, in order to preserve maximum player choice, you'd have to have FAR more "Epic" paths than "Heroic" ones. Given that most people tend to play in the low range of levels (assuming this doesn't change in 4.x, of course), that'd be poor game design - by creating the majority of their paths to be in the middle levels, and having Epic paths which aren't tied to your Heroic path, you give a lot more to work towards through the low levels, with some few, but hopefully interesting goodies for those hardcore among us.

[psychoticbarber]

This kind of remind me of the game Vandal Hearts. In that game you started off as one class, and then when you reached a specific level, you could chose to go one way or the other with your advancement. I don't recall the exact names, but as an example, a "fighter" type character had the choice of going the heavy-armored defense way, or the swashbuckling way.

"Promotions" in the Shining Force series work almost exactly in the same way. I liked that. The only issue is that you have to have enough base classes that people don't get bored with their (16, if there are 8 base classes) options.

[SmartAlec]

Woohoo! I thought as much.


I get the feeling that the talent trees idea we're seeing will make an awful lot of other classes and prestige classes redundant.

Bear in mind that multiclassing is easier, mainly because when you multiclass you'll get to choose what class-specific talents to take, rather than - for example - a Fighter having to take 3 and exactly 3 levels in Rogue to get Uncanny Dodge. So, it would be very easy to build a Scout type character by playing Ranger/Rogue, as you could pick and choose Rogue abilities and Ranger abilities to match.

The flipside is, with that flexibility now in place, it makes sense to give those folks prepared to stick with single-class advancement a reason to do so.

Fighter wants to be a Weapon Master? Easy - he just takes feats in the 'Weapon Specialisation' talent tree, until he's taken them all. Hey presti, he's 4th Ed's equivalent of a Weapon Master.

Rogue wants to be an Assassin? Easy - he just all takes feats in the 'Assassination' talent tree. Wizard wants to be an Archmage? Max out the 'Metamagic' line. Wants to be a Red Wizard? Max out the 'Casting Speciality' line. Ranger to be a super archer in the mould of the Arcane Archer instead? Takes everything in the Marksmanship line.

And so on, and so on.

This way, the things that we considered 'prestige bonuses' in the past are now more like 'single-class advancement' bonuses.

It also means when we see the real Prestige classes arrive, they'll be really prestigious. Ooo.

[Krrth]

I gott say, this is looking more and more like the stillborn Everquest2 rpg. I mean, we're looking at talents that we can pick up every couple of levels, some of which are racial in nature, the first 10 levels are the base class, the next levels are a branch, then the last levels are a branch off of that.

[wormwood]

Dungeons and Dragons has always had trouble with cookie-cutter classes. I thought 3.0 and, even more so, 3.5 had fixed that to some extent. If they take a step back toward the cookie-cutters in 4th edition then I'll be staying with 3.5.

It should be noted, though, that I'm not really a fan of level based systems at all. I prefer skill based systems. If I were in charge of D&D 4ed, I would've thrown away the whole level system and started from scratch. :)

[Lord Tataraus]

Until 4th comes out, I'm on the fence with this. I can see where this is a good thing, but I can see it also making the game boring or just as bad with 3rd's PrCs. I don't really like the sound of the paths to be honest mostly because I'm very questionable about the multi-classing.

[Orzel]

I like the idea of paths. Whether they are they going to be actual classes, a collection of feats, or a talent tree is unknown to me. HOPEFULLY they are just talent trees you can't select until level 11 or 21. So a ranger could stop taking favored enemy powers and take death attack (assassin) or imbue arrow (arcane archer) powers instead.

I just don't want to wait until level 11 to be a Horizon Walker! Lvl 11 is when I get my unlimited Dim Doors!

[Trog]

My guess is that they probably realized that there were good and bad PrC out there and they wanted to wipe the slate clean of the bad ones and optimize the good ones so they balance out more. Change the formatting a bit, tweak the numbers through rigorous play testing and numbers crunching and hopefully the result will be that you have most of the same options as before but better balance as they all start at the same level/end at the same level. I think they did the right thing by breaking it down into low, mid, and high level categories so that players that like a certain style of play have a balanced level to start at (1st, 11th, 21st). At least that's what I hope they have done. I have players now that don't consider a character very fun unless they have a couple levels of prestige class under their belt. :smallannoyed:

[Ruzak]

Dungeons and Dragons has always had trouble with cookie-cutter classes. I thought 3.0 and, even more so, 3.5 had fixed that to some extent. If they take a step back toward the cookie-cutters in 4th edition then I'll be staying with 3.5.

It should be noted, though, that I'm not really a fan of level based systems at all. I prefer skill based systems. If I were in charge of D&D 4ed, I would've thrown away the whole level system and started from scratch. :)

I am all for going back to more of a "cookie-cutter" model. There is something appealing about the simple elegance of a small number of classes. I am all for flexibility and customization, but it is nice to be a "fighter" or "cleric" as opposed to some bizarre combination of many classes. The class is at the core or who you are, and all the feats and options are variations on that class.

[spotmarkedx]

From the wording on the rumours this may not be the case, but I think it would be cool if the paragon and epic powers were divorced from class abilities; have them be a separate talent tree that kicks in once the racial tree ends (which is about at level 10 if my memorey serves).

So you could have both the "Paladin, Paragon of Honour" as well as "Wizard, Paragon of Honour" at the same time. Similarly, you could have the "Fighter/Cleric, Paragon of Planning" and "Rogue, Paragon of Athletics", or somesuch. While there may be some nice synergistic fits for Class/Paragon paths, it would not be a situation where Fighter becomes Fighter Class A or Fighter Class B at level 11.

It would also mean that you could easily have a dozen Paragon Paths, and only half a dozen Epic paths and not worry about limiting choices for the players.

[Morty]

Heh. On one hand, it makes character creation easier. On the other hand, PrCs were good tool to customize your character that "Paths" probably won't be able to duplicate.
Still, compared to other 4ed news, this one's good.

[Indon]

I could definitely appreciate this, if accurate.

I've always viewed Prestige Classes as a kind of version power-creep to classes, and while they're implied that they could be good story tools, they never seemed to be used, or even well-presented, to that effect.

Instead, it seems we're getting a class system sorta like D20 Modern, where your individual "classes" don't have enough levels to cover your entire progression, so you instead go into similar-but-different classes later on to fill out your progression as you get higher in level.

[Yakk]

Oh snap!

Races are the "subclass" for L 1 to 10.
Paragon paths are the "subclass" for 11 to 20.
Epic paths are the "subclass" for 21 to 30.

Each splat can add more Races, Paragon paths, and Epic paths.

[spotmarkedx]

Oh snap!

Races are the "subclass" for L 1 to 10.
Paragon paths are the "subclass" for 11 to 20.
Epic paths are the "subclass" for 21 to 30.

Each splat can add more Races, Paragon paths, and Epic paths.
!$#%. That's what I said, but a heck of a lot more concise. You, I applaud.

[Kurald Galain]

I think that the problem with PrCs happened in splat books. The Core PrCs are much better, in that you really can't get a ton of power without sacrificing something else.

Well, yes, but quite likely the same problem will happen with Paths in splat books. A remark that will have been ninja'ed before I make it, of course.

But, well, Warhammer FRP has used paths for good effect for over a decade.

[heroe_de_leyenda]

Given teh rules ar far more multiclass-friendly in 4e, I think paragon paths and epic destinies will not be tied to a single class (maybe, just maybe they are tied to combat roles) For instance, a warlord, a fighter and a paladin (maybe a cleric/fighter too) can all quallify to the Cavalier Path (or was it a destiny?)

I also think that epic destinies are not tied to paragon classes either.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Oh snap!

Races are the "subclass" for L 1 to 10.
Paragon paths are the "subclass" for 11 to 20.
Epic paths are the "subclass" for 21 to 30.

Each splat can add more Races, Paragon paths, and Epic paths.

D&D has suffered from power creep since the days of kits, that's nothing new. Anyway, I kinda worry about the effect this could have on the one thing PrC's did really well for 3.x IMO (the gish, arcane infiltrator, psi-gish, and psionic infiltrator). Yes there were base classes for most of these builds, but it was prestige classes that generally were looked at when doing a build like this. OTOH making a none combat oriented divine caster might make a divine gish and divine infiltrator viable choices if handled right. Still, if the paragon and epic paths are handled right, they could easily write paragon and epic gish and arcane infiltrator paths. Guess I'll wait and see (or maybe not, who knows?).

[Bosh]

Well one of the main problems in 3.5ed is that if you want to be a gish (or certain other multiclass combinations) you HAD to have a PrC or you would suck horrifically.

I think that 4ed is trying to overhaul the way that multiclassing works to make this need for gish PrCs disappear.

[fendrin]

Upon further thought, I'm not really sure how these differ from PrCs in anything other than an implication that you take all 10 levels.

Actually, I've got another idea. I think Yakk is already up on this, but let me try to elucidate it further.

It's almost like a gestalt or 2e multiclass set-up, where you have two progressions happening simultaneously.

One side is your class(es). Classes, we have been told, go from level 1-30.
The other side is your race, paragon path, and epic path.

So you could be a 15th level wizard, with 10 levels of elf abilities and 5 levels of whatever paragon path you have.

I'm starting to think that the big difference between a path and a PrC is that paths are layered onto your class(es), and I would be willing to bet that you can't multipath.

I like the idea of a system like this, though it does seem like it could make PC creation more complicated at higher levels. On the other hand, if you can't multi-path, it might be simpler. Especially if the you stick with a single class.

[AKA_Bait]

My question is do Epic Path Classes branch off of Path Classes, or off the Base Class? For example (totally made up paths for purpose of the example): Level 1-10 Fighter, Level 11-20 Mounted Archer, Level 21-30 Horse Master. Was the character able to take Horse Master at level 21 because of the Mounted Archer path, or could any level 21 Fighter take the Horse Master Epic Path?


I suspect, and not for any particular reason other than that it seems to make more sense, that they will split the baby on that. I'm thinking that some 11 - 20 level paths will lead into other 21+ paths. Meaning, although not any Fighter could take Horse Master Epic Path but any fighter who took one of ten or so Paths could.


Unfortunately, these paths will turn out the same as the prestige classes though. Each new splatbook will introduce new paths, etc...etc... In my opinion, the prestige classes in the DMG are the only ones that uniformly seemed fairly balanced...maybe with the exception of archmage.

Sadly, yes in terms of these being prestige classes for the most part. Each new splat book will doubtlessly have new paths, each campaign setting will too, etc. etc. There seems like there will be fewer options for shopping (i.e. you really can't have more than 2 prestige classes under this system, at least until the release 'The Way of Many Paths' or some such splat book at the 'Unearthed Arcana' point in 4e's run).

I think there are a few PrC's out there that are balanced. Of course, those are the ones that although flavorful get less play on the boards because they are also less powerful.


I think that 4ed is trying to overhaul the way that multiclassing works to make this need for gish PrCs disappear.

And I wish them the best of luck but it's not going to happen. I really cannot think of more than one or two gish classes or PrC's that are balanced. They have all been either very overpowered or very underpowered. I don't see WotC getting a whole lot more skilled at that and the reason is playtesting. I'm still of the mind that they don't do enough of it.

[mneme]

This thread seems a little split between people who've read a fair amount of 4e material and those who haven't.

Near as I can tell, from the playtest reports we've seen, they've -already- solved the gish problem, by letting you take feats that grant you part of another classes portolio. So want to do a fighter-primary Gish? Sure, just take a feat that gives you spellcasting, and *bang*, you've got secondary spellcasting to back up primary fighting. Want to do a wizard-primary gish? Find, take all your class levels in wizard and take a feat or feats that gives you some "defender" capability.

At the very least, re-sourcing everything to be scaled based on character level, not class level, helps a lot on all of this; when you pick up a single wizard power at 10th level, you can choose a 10th level power, its damage is scaled for a 10th level character, and you still get your base BAB and save bonus of .5/level -- unlike a 3e 9th level fighter who gains all of +2 to one save (and no BAB) for taking a Wizard level, plus some really crappy spells. By scaling damage, etc more or less uniformly across classes, they can do this without breaking the game; it's possible that it will end up being a mess, but it certainly looks to be an -interesting- mess.

This does not, of course, answer the question of what, with all this enabling multiclassing and talent tree building, they're going to tack on to the Paths; it seems like you could do nearly everything with talents, feats, and base classes as outlined. But I'm asuming they have -some- reasoning there.

[AKA_Bait]

Near as I can tell, from the playtest reports we've seen, they've -already- solved the gish problem, by letting you take feats that grant you part of another classes portolio. So want to do a fighter-primary Gish? Sure, just take a feat that gives you spellcasting, and *bang*, you've got secondary spellcasting to back up primary fighting. Want to do a wizard-primary gish? Find, take all your class levels in wizard and take a feat or feats that gives you some "defender" capability.

At the very least, re-sourcing everything to be scaled based on character level, not class level, helps a lot on all of this; when you pick up a single wizard power at 10th level, you can choose a 10th level power, its damage is scaled for a 10th level character, and you still get your base BAB and save bonus of .5/level -- unlike a 3e 9th level fighter who gains all of +2 to one save (and no BAB) for taking a Wizard level, plus some really crappy spells. By scaling damage, etc more or less uniformly across classes, they can do this without breaking the game; it's possible that it will end up being a mess, but it certainly looks to be an -interesting- mess.


I haven't seen the playtesters reports. Could you link one?

Having not seen them, this gish soloution looks like it is begging to be broken into little bitty peices by optimizers. Unless they implemented a system like that nearly perfectly the gish builds it spits out are either going to be massivley over or underpowered depending upon what those feats specifically give you.

[Orzel]

The way I see Prestige paths working is how racial substitution levels worked.

A level 11 good elf ranger can take the Slayer of Enemies power to gain double threat range and damage to favored enemies. As an elf ranger, he can take the Forest mastery power and be concealed while in forests. Being an elf with the Wizard training feat, he could go the Arcane Archer path and take Imbue Arrow for free magic arrows. Or having Track, Planes knowledge, and X ranks in Nature, he can go the Horizon Walker path and get teleport while in natural environments.

Then at level 12 when he gets a new feat, He can take the Bane of enemies, Enchant Arrow, or Terrain Mastery feats Or take any normal paragon feat.

[Tyrmatt]

Shouldn't we all wait until 4.5 is released anyway? We know it's going to be an utter shambles, as it is with every major milestone revision they've ever done.

The old players miss how Mechanic X used to work, the new players are disappointed that they can't do Y but their friend who played D&D before them did it once and then both sides fight over how Action Z should function because it wasn't explicitly covered in the PHB while the DM sobs softly into his carefully constructed campaign notes and mourns the several hundred pounds he spent on the 4e manuals and subscription to the online service so his childhood friend could join in the campaign with them from whatever alternate coast he is now situated on.

Being an early adopter is all well and good but I'm gonna let someone else take the hits before I step up and join in with the new rules.

[Theli]

I'm personally very happy about the death of the PrC. I was never happy with the rampant prestige class dipping I've seen mention of on the boards and the occasional f2f game.

Although it does seem like paths are simply a more restrictive prestige class-like mechanic. Which may not be that bad. I doubt the intention of most prestige classes was for dipping anyway.

[Tormsskull]

Shouldn't we all wait until 4.5 is released anyway? We know it's going to be an utter shambles, as it is with every major milestone revision they've ever done.


Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I'm actually looking forward to 4e. I'm hoping that they will be able to blend the two great desires, i.e. simplicty and options into one finely hued edition. As long as they get the holy trinity of the rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) done correctly, I could care less how much they mess it up later with splatbooks.



The old players miss how Mechanic X used to work, the new players are disappointed that they can't do Y but their friend who played D&D before them did it once and then both sides fight over how Action Z should function because it wasn't explicitly covered in the PHB


This is more of a mindset problem than an edition problem. Back in the early days of D&D there was this default understanding that the rules were guidelines, and everything was up to the DM. Every interpretation that had to be made, every judgment call, fell in the DM's lap. And most people were ok with that, games ran smoothly, etc.

Then with the takeover by WotC the default understanding seems to have moved to the rulebooks being the pennacle of authority, and the DMs that diverted from the rules were labeled "Bad DMs". House Rules were automatically assumed to be problematic before even being looked at, and took on a negative stigma.

My own theories on why this occured probably aren't of any value to the mass audience, so I won't go into them here. But I think that if a casual reader were to go back and read the Basic D&D Books, then the 1st edition AD&D, 2nd edition AD&D, and then finally 3.x edition D&D they would definitely be able to see the change in the tone of voice the books use.

A very good example of this is the web articles/"enhancements" put out by WotC. In one article I remember in the FAQs portion, a player wrote to the company saying that they really wanted to play a using a particular splat book but that their DM wouldn't allow it. The writer asked WotC how to convince the DM to allow the materials, and WotC responded by telling the player to show the DM pages x, y, and z of the splat book and then compare it to PHB pages, a, b, c.

The response to the writer should have simply been "The DM has the final call on all matters and WotC isn't in the business of trying to force DMs to use any supplements." But, instead they try to show that all of their products are carefully balanced with one another and that any DM that doesn't allow the latest and greatest is being unfair to the players. And I call total BS on that.

[Larrin]

i think the power is in the name, its a 'Path' you're going somewhere with it, where as a "prestige" class seems to imply you're already there.

Example:
3.5 rogue->assassin PrC: after 1 level he's an Assassin, and really has no commit to following up on it (death attack improvement not withstanding), he may as well be a shadow dancer next level and pick his way through PrC's until he's an assassin/shadowdancer/silentBlade/IotSV/BasketWeaver/..../Obsidian ninja its all about getting the little powers he wants, not what he is.

4e rogue->assassin path: You start becoming an assassin, but until you reach the end of the path, you don't really have enough to call yourself one, and you're pretty motivated to stay on it for its duration. His path will allow him access to many powers that could appeal to an assassin, some unique, some not so he doesn't have to 'Path Hop' to get all the little tricks he feels he needs to be a proficient assassin.

I'm hoping that like most paths in life, it allows a little wandering, and if you decide to switch paths it lets you with minimum hassle but the concept will be one of striving for a future goal, not suddenly being there.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I gott say, this is looking more and more like the stillborn Everquest2 rpg. I mean, we're looking at talents that we can pick up every couple of levels, some of which are racial in nature, the first 10 levels are the base class, the next levels are a branch, then the last levels are a branch off of that.

Or.... *gasp!* D20 Modern (which apparently no one's ever played before). You have 6 base classes, with a 10 level cap, every odd/even level you get a bonus feat/talent point, and each base class had 2 designated advanced classes (though other base classes could get access to some Adv classes but it would take an extra level or so to get the prereqs, for example, you could get Fast Hero 4/Soldier 1). There were no penalties for multiclassing though.

As for the OP's question, I've played a couple of Saga games that went up into the low teen levels, and it worked just fine for our group. The base class talent paths offered incentive to not take PrCs, and the PrCs seemed specialised enough that you don't turn into an ubergod by taking a cryptic path. The Jedi laser deflect ability starts to balance itself out the higher level you get (at level 12, your 'use force' skill will be 16+Cha (with skill focus), so he'll be able to deflect 2-3 times a turn (max) if he rolls well). Thing is, there are only 5 base classes, but thanks to the talent paths, there was alot of diversity, even with 2 people picking the Jedi class.

As for the no-prestige class news, I find that's great! I won't be made fun of in my group for sticking to a base class now... Most of my sessions include something like this:
PC1: So what class are you?
Me: Wizard
PC2: Cool. What PrC you going to get?
Me: Probably none. None of them really fit the character.
PC1: Seriously? Damn... your character's going to suck...

[Roderick_BR]

Looks like they'll use something like advanced classes. From level 1 to 10, you are base. From 11 onward, you'll be something else. Probably a bunch of "default" advanced classes, then variant ones.
Yeah, sounds like everyone will automatically going into a PrC anyway, only with different names.
Hmm... "advanced classes" at first reminded me of d20 moderm, but then it reminded me of Ragnarok Online...

[Kurald Galain]

Or.... *gasp!* D20 Modern (which apparently no one's ever played before).

I suspect that is because it is not a very flavorful setting - as evidenced, among others, by its using "fast hero" as a class name.

While in terms of mechanics it is a decent effort, in terms of setting it simply cannot stand against Whitewolf, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and Off the Edge.

[MeklorIlavator]

:Snip:

A very good example of this is the web articles/"enhancements" put out by WotC. In one article I remember in the FAQs portion, a player wrote to the company saying that they really wanted to play a using a particular splat book but that their DM wouldn't allow it. The writer asked WotC how to convince the DM to allow the materials, and WotC responded by telling the player to show the DM pages x, y, and z of the splat book and then compare it to PHB pages, a, b, c.

The response to the writer should have simply been "The DM has the final call on all matters and WotC isn't in the business of trying to force DMs to use any supplements." But, instead they try to show that all of their products are carefully balanced with one another and that any DM that doesn't allow the latest and greatest is being unfair to the players. And I call total BS on that.

I don't think that's exactly what they where saying. The player was asking ways he could convince the Dm to allow a certain splatbook, and the writer told him to show a couple of pages. Nowhere in your description does the writer begin to suggest that the Dm is being unfair to the players, and I personally know a couple Dm's(myself included, though t I'd like to believe all of us have grown out of it) who might have blocked certain books for no reason but the fact that they looked too powerful as a gut reaction, without reading the material carefully(heck, maybe it was the art). In that case, the player may have been following a legitimate strategy, namely asking someone with presumably more rules experience to help him make his case. In cases like these the circumstances really matter.

[Hagentai]

Well, this in fact sounds quite promissing, some prestige classes were really neat, but this concept also sounds interesting.

Speaking aside optimisation, going Barbarian 20 was literally boring as he had nothing to do about himself besides feats (skill weren't Barb's very strong side).

Those "paths" can be fun.

Any idea how many paths would be available for each class?

Look at iron heroes. You may get a good guess.