Conceptual value of Prestige Classes?

[Tanarii]

Maybe its been too long since I read the chapter and it actually advises making them all part of certain orders and cabals, but the original prestige classes in the DMG are pretty generic. You've got three that have group membership requirements and two of those (Arcane Archer and Dwarven Defender) are just "be x race" as a prereq. Assassin is the only one the requires you to become a member of a group post character creation.

Oops yes, I forgot "or racial specialties". Still a faction thing, just a broader one.

[Nifft]

Maybe its been too long since I read the chapter and it actually advises making them all part of certain orders and cabals, but the original prestige classes in the DMG are pretty generic. You've got three that have group membership requirements and two of those (Arcane Archer and Dwarven Defender) are just "be x race" as a prereq. Assassin is the only one the requires you to become a member of a group post character creation.

Don't forget the Red Wizard of Thay, which was also in the DMG (but not the SRD).

The other PrCs seem to be intended as examples, to spur each DM's creativity in his or her own game, so most of them being generic might be fully intentional:

If you look at the later published settings like Eberron, you can see some direct translations from a generic DMG template into a campaign-specific variant, like the Eldritch Knight (DMG) => Knight Phantom (5Nations).

[Luccan]

Don't forget the Red Wizard of Thay, which was also in the DMG (but not the SRD).

The other PrCs seem to be intended as examples, to spur each DM's creativity in his or her own game, so most of them being generic might be fully intentional:

If you look at the later published settings like Eberron, you can see some direct translations from a generic DMG template into a campaign-specific variant, like the Eldritch Knight (DMG) => Knight Phantom (5Nations).

Honestly I forgot about the Red Wizard. The physical copy of the DMG I owned was 3.0, which had a shorter list of PrCs, and I mostly use the SRD these days. Still, at best it's a suggestion by examples, rather than outright stated. Which explains why it's far more common for PrCs to not have such prereqs.

[Knaight]

I picked Vancian casting, alignment, and dungeon crawling as the three points to highlight partly because Aotrs was talking about Vancian casting in the bit I quoted but mostly because all three are basically the first things that D&D-players-who-don't-like-D&D try to get rid of--

I definitely get that - I tend to get involved less in the "D&D sucks" conversations and more in the "D&D is not particularly well suited for generic fantasy" conversations, and while all three of those hold I also tend to favor pointing out things that are clear setting specific elements. So the Arcane/Divine split, the heavy influence of planes and planar-interfacing spells, the very specific bestiary, and if we're talking about 3.x I usually also point to the demographic by class and level tables.

[NigelWalmsley]

the very specific bestiary

What? D&D's bestiary is the kitchen sink-iest part of the game. You can pull out the monsters you need for basically any setting. It's true that there will be less monsters than a dedicated setting-specific game will have, but you're still miles ahead of any other "generic fantasy" option on that front.

if we're talking about 3.x I usually also point to the demographic by class and level tables.

You mean the things pretty much everyone ignores all the time? It's like saying 3e is a bad fit for Kung Fu adventures because Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmm, that's not how I do things.

Magic of the D&D style makes that sort of assumption unnecessary.

D&D magic being a thing means that an individual can create an eternally-powered nigh-impervious relic without the aid of any particular infrastructure.

Furthermore, the creation of the artifact in question might be the exact and specific event which wrecked or consumed the previous civilization -- and that doesn't demand any particularly advanced precondition, just a bunch of dudes to sacrifice.

Anyone can do the "eternally-powered" part, but by "nigh-impervious" I was referring to actual minor and major artifacts, which are head and shoulders above modern items power-wise, generally unique in capability, and specifically no longer creatable in the modern era. Generally ancient civilizations are used and referenced for their artifacts rather than generic dungeons full of +1 longswords, which are more the province of mad cultists or lich kings or whatever, so even if you posit that a particular civilization had the same spell knowledge, magical cap, etc. as modern ones, there's at least one area in which they were more advanced than the modern ones.

As an example, in my games the Ur-Flan weren't more magically advanced. They were powerful, but their spells didn't go above level 9, and their relics aren't more advanced than what people in modern Greyhawk could produce -- they're just more horribly detrimental than what modern people would accept, and their fabrication methods are a big part of why the Flanaesse had such vast tracts of empty land when the Oerdians migrated east.

It's a case of less-advanced empathy rather than more-advanced tech.

You don't have to assume ancient civilizations were more advanced, or at least that all of them were, certainly, it's just a default assumption that at least some of them were to justify certain things about the setting.

What? D&D's bestiary is the kitchen sink-iest part of the game. You can pull out the monsters you need for basically any setting. It's true that there will be less monsters than a dedicated setting-specific game will have, but you're still miles ahead of any other "generic fantasy" option on that front.

This is another case of conflating "generic in D&D" and "generic in fantasy." Any monsters in D&D can generally work in any setting for D&D, but those monsters themselves are either unique to D&D (e.g. illithids or owlbears), inspired by mythology or fiction but distinctly different than the source material (e.g. medusas or hobgoblins), generic monsters given a D&D-specific spin (e.g. dragons or ghosts), and so on. Color-coded dragons, devils and demons being different things, "oozes" as a monster category, and many other things make D&D's monsters distinct from those in other games and immediately recognizable if ported wholesale into non-D&D games or settings.

You mean the things pretty much everyone ignores all the time? It's like saying 3e is a bad fit for Kung Fu adventures because Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes.

DMs might not use those tables to generate every single settlement's NPCs because they're intended as quick auto-generators rather than hard rules, but the setting splats use those stats as a baseline so if you've used Waterdeep or Sharn then you've indirectly used them, and I'm sure you've seen forum debaters pull out a "Well, according to the demographics tables, you can find an Xth-level Y in a Metropolis..." argument at least once.

[Elves]

In a level based game I don't think there's a substitute for actually taking a level in a class with a cool, longer and more exotic name than a base class could have. I don't think you can really replicate PRCs with subclasses (kit modifications) either, since those are tied at some level to hitting the same notes as the base class or else they become something completely different. Prestige classes and subclasses/variant classes/whatever you call them fulfill different roles and there's space for both.

Having specialized classes that are shorter than the main base classes and have certain requirements to enter is a very simple and common sense idea.

But there are two ways that 3e, especially in the early part of its run, did not execute well on that idea:
- Base classes with bad and few class features, making PRCs feel mandatory
- PRCs with piddling and over-specific class features, especially ones that were setting-specific and/or could have easily been replicated with minor "organization" bonuses.

Most of the objections in this thread seem to be about those execution failures, not about the core concept, which IMO is very sound. There were a lot of good PRCs in 3e as well.

Honestly, PRCs are such a simple idea that the only reason not to include something like them in a D&D-type game is if you want it to be very minimal and standardized. That's understandable for something like an indie game where you want it to be self-contained. Less so for the flagship of the genre.

[Nifft]

You don't have to assume ancient civilizations were more advanced, or at least that all of them were, certainly, it's just a default assumption that at least some of them were to justify certain things about the setting.

The times that I've used "more advanced" civilizations, they're for elements stolen from Conan or Fafhrd & Grey Mouser -- the idea of crashed spaceships, or abandoned colonial starports, or other specifically-justified futuristic tech.

For some artifacts, that setting element is quite natural: the Machine of Lum the Mad, the Apparatus of Kwalish, the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O -- those blatantly are from "more advanced" civilizations. And those artifacts are awesome, and their origin is awesome. But it's not the default origin, and it's not even close to the only origin.

The Hand and Eye of Vecna? Nope, not "more advanced", just some evil bony-boi who turned into a god.
The Sword of Kas? Same eye, different hand. Not "more advanced".
The Mace of Cuthbert? Again, just some guy who got god'd.
The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar? NO FILLINGS, probably not very advanced.

There's wiggle room for some artifacts. Like, you could probably write up a backstory where the Rod of Seven Parts is from a "more advanced" civilization. But that's not the only reasonable origin, and you'd have to invent the civilization which justified your backstory -- the Wind Dukes of Aaqa are just a broad-stroke allusion in most sources.

[Luccan]

In a level based game I don't think there's a substitute for actually taking a level in a class with a cool, longer and more exotic name than a base class could have. I don't think you can really replicate PRCs with subclasses (kit modifications) either, since those are tied at some level to hitting the same notes as the base class or else they become something completely different. Prestige classes and subclasses/variant classes/whatever you call them fulfill different roles and there's space for both.

Having specialized classes that are shorter than the main base classes and have certain requirements to enter is a very simple and common sense idea.

But there are two ways that 3e, especially in the early part of its run, did not execute well on that idea:
- Base classes with bad and few class features, making PRCs feel mandatory
- PRCs with piddling and over-specific class features, especially ones that were setting-specific and/or could have easily been replicated with minor "organization" bonuses.

Most of the objections in this thread seem to be about those execution failures, not about the core concept, which IMO is very sound. There were a lot of good PRCs in 3e as well.

Honestly, PRCs are such a simple idea that the only reason not to include something like them in a D&D-type game is if you want it to be very minimal and standardized. That's understandable for something like an indie game where you want it to be self-contained. Less so for the flagship of the genre.

I don't think PRCs are a necessary extension of a class and level system, whether or not subclasses and ACFs can fill the roll. It over-burdens the system by demanding short progression classes that can be entered at a variety of levels and are at least close to on par with any level they can be entered from. It's too easy to fall short or shoot past your goal. You could do it, but you need a tight grip on progression and every PRC needs to be considered with all possible base classes and other PRCs. The more you add of either, the more likely you are to fail. PRCs are a nice option in the right games, and one I'm glad to have in 3.5 (and its direct spin offs) where it's necessary. But you shouldn't need it any more than you need multiclassing; it's a class based game, if you can't persuade enough people to stay in a single class for every level to begin with, something has gone wrong.

[Elves]

every PRC needs to be considered with all possible base classes and other PRCs. The more you add of either, the more likely you are to fail.

No you don't. Against their rough equivalents, sure. But it's fine if there's content that doesn't get used much. You should have a better basic methodology in writing PRCs than was the norm in much of 3e, but there doesn't have to be this tight claw around the content that's allowed to exist so that only the stuff that's part of some perfect, enclosed framework is allowed in.

If the worry is these public events like the adventurers league or whatever, just implement something like Magic where only core content plus current season content is allowed -- or just use pregen characters.

But you shouldn't need it any more than you need multiclassing.it's a class based game, if you can't persuade enough people to stay in a single class for every level to begin with, something has gone wrong

On the contrary, I'd say a modular level system is inherently friendly to and almost logically necessitates the existence of multiclassing (and from there, logically implies prestige classes). If you want to have people locked into a single class progression, a level system likely isn't the best way to go (you see this in games with a very pre-set, rigorously curated meta like World of Warcraft, where the levels are virtually meaningless except as a way of gating content).

At the point where single-classing is the only option, you're almost better off treating it more like a MOBA, with unique heroes who have unique kits designed to have a certain gameplay flow.

But that starts to not "feel like D&D", as the sacred phrase is now, and more importantly, it doesn't employ the unique advantages that tabletop D&D has when compared to a competitive videogame where the meta has to be strictly monitored and homogenized.


I'm not actually saying it's a bad option. Honestly, if I were to host a D&D game right now, for any edition, I would probably just work with the PCs to build the unique power kits they want, rather than strictly following the character building guidelines. But it takes you pretty far from the conventional D&D levelling system. I think if you want to use that system, its natural logic leads to the existence of multiclassing and prestige classes.


Edit: Re the charge of people "not willing to stay in a single class", see my post above -- that's an issue of weakly designed base classes, just as the claim that prestige classes were too finicky and overspecific is an issue of weakly designed prestige classes. By all means, have base classes be so fun that lots of people don't even want to leave.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

For some artifacts, that setting element is quite natural: the Machine of Lum the Mad, the Apparatus of Kwalish, the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O -- those blatantly are from "more advanced" civilizations. And those artifacts are awesome, and their origin is awesome. But it's not the default origin, and it's not even close to the only origin.

The Hand and Eye of Vecna? Nope, not "more advanced", just some evil bony-boi who turned into a god.
The Sword of Kas? Same eye, different hand. Not "more advanced".
The Mace of Cuthbert? Again, just some guy who got god'd.
The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar? NO FILLINGS, probably not very advanced.

Note that I said a default and some artifacts in the bit you quoted. There are indeed plenty of artifacts that were created by being used to do something heroic, by being the personal item of an ascended god, by having a power being bound inside it, and so on and so forth.

But when it comes to the nameless/generic artifacts (as much as any artifact can be "generic") like the Book of Infinite Spells, Philosopher's Stone, Orbs of Dragonkind, Staff of the Magi, and the like, most settings (but, again, not all) assume that they were just made by a fallen civilization that was better at, respectively, spellbook-scribing, alchemy, soul-binding, and item crafting than anyone in the modern era.

There's wiggle room for some artifacts. Like, you could probably write up a backstory where the Rod of Seven Parts is from a "more advanced" civilization. But that's not the only reasonable origin, and you'd have to invent the civilization which justified your backstory -- the Wind Dukes of Aaqa are just a broad-stroke allusion in most sources.

I mean, the Wind Dukes explicitly ruled an empire that encompassed the entire Inner Planes, most of the Planes of Law, and at least dozens of Material Plane Worlds, and the Rod of Seven Parts was a superweapon capable of killing gods in one hit. If they don't count as "more advanced" than modern civilizations, then geez, you have really high standards.

[NigelWalmsley]

This is another case of conflating "generic in D&D" and "generic in fantasy." Any monsters in D&D can generally work in any setting for D&D, but those monsters themselves are either unique to D&D (e.g. illithids or owlbears), inspired by mythology or fiction but distinctly different than the source material (e.g. medusas or hobgoblins), generic monsters given a D&D-specific spin (e.g. dragons or ghosts), and so on. Color-coded dragons, devils and demons being different things, "oozes" as a monster category, and many other things make D&D's monsters distinct from those in other games and immediately recognizable if ported wholesale into non-D&D games or settings.

This seems like missing the point. Yes, the D&D bestiary contains things that are specific to D&D. But it also contains a huge variety of things that allow you to support basically any setting. You've got western dragons, eastern dragons, Norse monsters, Greek monsters, Indian monsters, Chinese monsters, and all kinds of other things. The point isn't that everything fits well in any particular setting, but that you are equipped to support any particular setting.

I'm sure you've seen forum debaters pull out a "Well, according to the demographics tables, you can find an Xth-level Y in a Metropolis..." argument at least once.

I've seen that exactly once, from one poster. I don't think I've ever seen those tables come up when someone wasn't arguing with him.

I don't think PRCs are a necessary extension of a class and level system, whether or not subclasses and ACFs can fill the roll. It over-burdens the system by demanding short progression classes that can be entered at a variety of levels and are at least close to on par with any level they can be entered from.

That's a result of open multiclassing, not PrCs. The sensible version of PrCs looks like 4e's Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies, and happen at particular levels and last for a specific amount of time. It's true that trying to make 3e-style PrCs work well is hard, but that's true of 3e-style classes as well.

But you shouldn't need it any more than you need multiclassing; it's a class based game, if you can't persuade enough people to stay in a single class for every level to begin with, something has gone wrong.

Again, I think this is probably more down to specifically open multiclassing. The idea that someone might have some Rogue powers and some Wizard powers is entirely reasonable, and not particularly difficult to support. The issue is trying to support a Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/Bard/Hexblade/Favored Soul.

[Tanarii]

But you shouldn't need it any more than you need multiclassing; it's a class based game, if you can't persuade enough people to stay in a single class for every level to begin with, something has gone wrong.

The bigger problem is when it's designed to be a single class game, and multiclassing is kind of tacked on. Especially when it's open multiclassing in which you can just start adding a new level from any other qualified class or PrC.

It kinda works if the system assumes that low levels generally have less value than higher levels. For example in D&D 3e and 5e, spellcasters in both 3e and 5e, gaining the next level on a class usually has more value than the previous.

Where it falls down is non-progressive or highly front-loaded classes. Which in D&D is most non-spellcasting class features.

[Cluedrew]

On the contrary, I'd say a modular level system is inherently friendly to and almost logically necessitates the existence of multiclassing (and from there, logically implies prestige classes).

What do you mean by "a modular level system"? Starting from the basis of "the character is there class" base I only know of 3 attempts to make it much more flexible: multi-classing (covered), duel-/hybrid-classes (build your own classes, actually just explodes the number of classes) and other build options (not the entire character comes from the class choice). How many of these would be included?

[Nifft]

Note that I said a default and some artifacts in the bit you quoted. There are indeed plenty of artifacts that were created by being used to do something heroic, by being the personal item of an ascended god, by having a power being bound inside it, and so on and so forth.

But when it comes to the nameless/generic artifacts (as much as any artifact can be "generic") like the Book of Infinite Spells, Philosopher's Stone, Orbs of Dragonkind, Staff of the Magi, and the like, most settings (but, again, not all) assume that they were just made by a fallen civilization that was better at, respectively, spellbook-scribing, alchemy, soul-binding, and item crafting than anyone in the modern era.

First off, a default case is a catch-all for things which haven't been otherwise assigned -- a default is the same as the default. If you had more than one, none of them would be the default.

The 3e version of the Philosopher's Stone was just a special kind of geode.

It sounds like you've been playing a lot of Forgotten Realms lately and its tropes have rubbed off on you, but those tropes are not even slightly generic.

I mean, the Wind Dukes explicitly ruled an empire that encompassed the entire Inner Planes, most of the Planes of Law, and at least dozens of Material Plane Worlds, and the Rod of Seven Parts was a superweapon capable of killing gods in one hit. If they don't count as "more advanced" than modern civilizations, then geez, you have really high standards.

Nah, what I have is more than one source.

Here's what an early source had to say about the Wind Dukes:

See anything about ruling the entire Inner Planes? Neither do I.

What source are you using for your proclamation?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

This seems like missing the point. Yes, the D&D bestiary contains things that are specific to D&D. But it also contains a huge variety of things that allow you to support basically any setting. You've got western dragons, eastern dragons, Norse monsters, Greek monsters, Indian monsters, Chinese monsters, and all kinds of other things. The point isn't that everything fits well in any particular setting, but that you are equipped to support any particular setting.

The point is that D&D's takes on dragons, Greek monsters, and so on aren't "generic fantasy" takes, they're D&D-specific: other games don't assume that dragon breath weapons and temperaments vary by color, that "medusa" is a race rather than an individual (and one that is distinct from "gorgon"), and so on. While those versions of those monsters can obviously be ported elsewhere, if you're talking about "things that D&D players often talk about as if they are 'generic' when they're actually idiosyncratic to D&D" then the monster list and particular descriptions of monsters are definitely up there.

First off, a default case is a catch-all for things which haven't been otherwise assigned -- a default is the same as the default. If you had more than one, none of them would be the default.
[...]
It sounds like you've been playing a lot of Forgotten Realms lately and its tropes have rubbed off on you, but those tropes are not even slightly generic.

It's a default because every setting has its own default assumptions. FR and Greyhawk assume "made as a prototype/one-off by an advanced fallen civilization" while Dragonlance assumes "made as a relic by the gods or their main servants" and Ravenloft assumes "made by the Dark Powers to screw with you," for instance. All of the earliest settings (Mystara, Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and FR) did the "fallen civilizations" thing, so it's more common than you're implying, but things definitely did branch out after that.

Nah, what I have is more than one source.

Here's what an early source had to say about the Wind Dukes:

[snip image]

See anything about ruling the entire Inner Planes? Neither do I.

What source are you using for your proclamation?

Let's see, there's...

• 2e Book of Artifacts, Rod of Seven Parts entry
• Age of Worms adventure path, The Whispering Cairn and A Gathering of Winds
• Dragon #224, History of the Rod of Seven Parts
• Rod of Seven Parts adventure module, Vaati lore
• 2e Monstrous Compendium Annual: Volume Four, Vaati entry

How's that for more than one source?

Yes, the original artifact writeups (Eldritch Wizardry booklets, 1e DMG, etc.) had pretty sparse lore than was more allusion than fact and was largely filled in by later products, but then they also had literal fill-in-the-blanks powers that you rolled on a table (to prevent players from knowing their powers and allow DMs to customize them per campaign) which were also solidified later. When discussing what various settings say about artifact lore, one can't exactly go back to the beginning before said settings were detailed.

[Nifft]

It's a default because every setting has its own default assumptions. FR and Greyhawk assume "made as a prototype/one-off by an advanced fallen civilization" while Dragonlance assumes "made as a relic by the gods or their main servants" and Ravenloft assumes "made by the Dark Powers to screw with you," for instance. All of the earliest settings (Mystara, Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and FR) did the "fallen civilizations" thing, so it's more common than you're implying, but things definitely did branch out after that.

Greyhawk has tons of "gods did it" and "some dude who was awesome did something awesome and this is what's left of him", and much of their "advanced civilization" tech was NOT due to the fall of those civilizations, but rather because something from a Sci-Fi setting literally fell from the skies and now here it is.

Let's see, there's...[list][*]2e Book of Artifacts, Rod of Seven Parts entry

Okay, I started trying to fact-check my assumptions with this entry, and it seems to back me up (not you) -- I don't see anything about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa ruling any particular plane.

Could you cite from each of these sources the part where your claims about the civilization details are supported?

Because right now, it looks like you're mistaken about your own sources.

Here's what the 2e Book of Artifacts says:

Spoiler

Show

[Man_Over_Game]

But I'm a little uncertain of what, conceptually, Prestige Classes offer. That is, I cannot evaluate the optimal implementation of "Prestige Classes", without knowing what I'm measuring.

So, here's what I see:

Differentiation. Sure, there may be hundreds of Fighters in my guild, but how many also have Swashbuckler and Devoted Defender levels? When talking with other X, or with beings with the discernment to comprehend the difference, you're not just an X, you're an X.Y.Z.

That's what I see as the core to Prestige Classes.

Every caster has spell slots. Some casters use them to summon monsters. Fewer summon demons. But only I can summon a demon and take over his body.

It's about introducing enough specialized mechanics that your character feels distinctly unique, to make your persona only yours. I think it fits better in a system where everything has more universal mechanics (so magic wasn't any different than martials in terms of core tabletop mechanics), rather than 3.5.

However, 3.5 is special since people liked 3.5 due to its complications, and so they wanted something even MORE complicated. MORE difficulty. If you have a game with an impossible level of difficulty, there will be people lined up to try and surpass it, as it too provides them with a sense of uniqueness and identity (See: I Wanna Be the Guy).


Personally, in a good game, I feel it's the means of creating new mechanics while demanding specific limitations to those mechanics to prevent those features from mutating with other resources (you cannot cast/maintain spells while Raging, because Spells + Raging could be overpowered), all to develop a sense of identity for the player.

When it's poorly implemented, it's a means of artificially ramping up the difficulty.

I say Prestige Classes are a poor mechanic to 3.5, because a lot of mechanics in 3.5 are mutually exclusive. For example, you cannot attack and cast a spell in the same turn without some kind of specialization effect that you invested into. One that you had to choose instead of something else.

Skills and Attacking, Attacking and Magic, Magic and Skills; these don't interact without some kind of exception saying they do, and often your build is defined by one of these pillars. You're already very unique, since the game only really works with specializations in the first place. Adding another mechanic (Prestige Options) to basically say "Nobody else can do this cool thing that you invested into" was entirely redundant when that's already the core of the game.
At the level Prestige Options were available at, everything is already so specialized that the focus should have been on generalizing mechanics to allow more diversity, rather than walling them all off even further.

------------------------------

There is one other consideration for Prestige Options and how they fit in, to use them as "patches" for certain thematic/mechanical combos that seem effective but actually aren't. For example, combining the Lightning Warrior with the Thundermancer sounds like it'd be a cool, thematic character, but limitations to the system prevent those classes' features from working with one another. In DnD terms, an example of this is a situation where you can't attack and cast a spell at the same time, so you're stuck being EITHER a Thundermancer OR a Lightning Warrior rather than feeling like both at once.

A Prestige Option-esc change to the game can fix that. However, these are less of a "specialized class" sort of deal, and more of a "If you happen to be these two things, here's some glue to hold them together". A good way of implementing that is providing a bonus based on the lowest level class in the combo. For example, "If you make an attack, you can cast a spell as part of your attack from the Thundermancer spell list, as long as that spell has no higher spell level than the lowest of your Thundermancer and Lightning Warrior levels". This rewards someone who dabbles, as well as those who lean into the Prestige Option, but doesn't require someone to do either as that'd be against the point.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Greyhawk has tons of "gods did it" and "some dude who was awesome did something awesome and this is what's left of him", and much of their "advanced civilization" tech was NOT due to the fall of those civilizations, but rather because something from a Sci-Fi setting literally fell from the skies and now here it is.

I wasn't including the high tech artifacts under "fallen civilizations" (though the spaceships did fall, technically ), just things like the axe of the dwarvish lords (first united dwarven kingdom), Daoud's wondrous lantern (Tusmit), Tovag Baragu (Baklun), and similar.

Okay, I started trying to fact-check my assumptions with this entry, and it seems to back me up (not you) -- I don't see anything about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa ruling any particular plane.

Could you cite from each of these sources the part where your claims about the civilization details are supported?

Because right now, it looks like you're mistaken about your own sources.

Here's what the 2e Book of Artifacts says:

[snip picture]

I didn't actually remember which sources had which material, just that all the Rod of Seven Parts material talks about the Vaati and vice versa. Here are two supporting quotes that came up on a quick search:

Aeons ago, the Vaati ruled a vast empire spread over several worlds of the Material Plane, with footholds throughout the planes.

In ages long past, before the rise of elves, dwarves, or humans, the legendary Wind Dukes of Aaqa ruled a vast empire, bringing Law and elemental magic to many barbarian worlds. Air and lightning powered their magic, and their tie to the Elemental Plane of Air was very strong.

In time, they mastered the other elements as well, and as they grew more and more powerful, dozens of other elemental and lawful races swore fealty to them, from the lofty djinn and proud salamanders to the least of the mud sorcerer cults and the inevitables, servants of the Wind Dukes. At its peak, the empire of the Wind Dukes comprised most of the elemental planes, from the oceanic palacies of the marid to the City of Brass.

The Inner Planes were harmonius, united under one rule--until forces led by the demonic Queen of Chaos rallied slaad, demons, and others against them.

---

However, 3.5 is special since people liked 3.5 due to its complications, and so they wanted something even MORE complicated. MORE difficulty. If you have a game with an impossible level of difficulty, there will be people lined up to try and surpass it, as it too provides them with a sense of uniqueness and identity (See: I Wanna Be the Guy).

Actually, when 3e came out, people liked it due to its simplicity, as it was head and shoulders better than AD&D when it came to mechanical unity, clarity of prose, standardization of structure, and so forth. The idea that people like 3e because it's "overly complicated" is a meme that arose during the 3e/4e edition wars to support the "4e streamlined everything so it's better" narrative, and doesn't at all reflect the opinion on 3e at the time

I say Prestige Classes are a poor mechanic to 3.5, because a lot of mechanics in 3.5 are mutually exclusive. For example, you cannot attack and cast a spell in the same turn without some kind of specialization effect that you invested into. One that you had to choose instead of something else.

That's the case in...pretty much every game, really. Whenever you take a turn, the things you can do are limited by actions or action points or initiative passes or whatever, and if you want to be able to do multiple things at once you have to have a special thing that says you can.

Exclusivity is the fundamental basis of class systems. Classes divide the space of possible options into "things only members of class X can do" vs. "things members of class X can do and members of other classes can also do" vs. "things members of class X cannot do" as well as "things all members of class X can do" vs. "things some members of class X can do." Anything that lets you shake up those categories should ideally be accomplished through a class-based feature (e.g. an ACF or subclass) rather than a class-independent feature (e.g. a feat or template), or you start diluting the system quite a bit.

3e, with its free multiclassing, substantial skill system, "second progression" of magic items, and so forth is probably at the maximum level of flexibility you can feasibly manage in a class-based system before it's time to throw up your hands and just use GURPS, and some would argue (though I would strongly disagree) that it's past that point already. Loosening the boundaries between classes in 3e or a 3e-like system isn't a good idea unless you're tightening them up elsewhere, and even then it's iffy.

There is one other consideration for Prestige Options and how they fit in, to use them as "patches" for certain thematic/mechanical combos that seem effective but actually aren't. For example, combining the Lightning Warrior with the Thundermancer sounds like it'd be a cool, thematic character, but limitations to the system prevent those classes' features from working with one another. In DnD terms, an example of this is a situation where you can't attack and cast a spell at the same time, so you're stuck being EITHER a Thundermancer OR a Lightning Warrior rather than feeling like both at once.

A Prestige Option-esc change to the game can fix that. However, these are less of a "specialized class" sort of deal, and more of a "If you happen to be these two things, here's some glue to hold them together". A good way of implementing that is providing a bonus based on the lowest level class in the combo. For example, "If you make an attack, you can cast a spell as part of your attack from the Thundermancer spell list, as long as that spell has no higher spell level than the lowest of your Thundermancer and Lightning Warrior levels". This rewards someone who dabbles, as well as those who lean into the Prestige Option, but doesn't require someone to do either as that'd be against the point.

Good idea in theory, shot to pieces by combinatorics in practice. Hot-patching certain class combinations works, kind of, when you have the 4 "classic" classes, or the 9ish core classes of 2e, or the 11 of 3e; making 11 classes play nicely with each other "only" requires 110 rules notes. But the next class you add needs 11 new notes, the next 12, the next 13, and so on, and that's assuming you don't consider ACFs or wizard specializations or the like separately from the main class. You could try to be more generic by e.g. making multiclass notes for "Warrior Classes" rather than separate notes for the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Knight/Marshal/Warblade/..., but then you run into unforeseen combo territory and you're probably better off making PrCs to at least restrict the playtest and balance space.

[Nifft]

I wasn't including the high tech artifacts under "fallen civilizations" (though the spaceships did fall, technically ), just things like the axe of the dwarvish lords (first united dwarven kingdom), Daoud's wondrous lantern (Tusmit), Tovag Baragu (Baklun), and similar.

Fallen space ships aren't fallen civilizations, of course -- not unless your civilization was doing very poorly to begin with!

Tovag Baragu is basically a fantasy interplanar Stonehenge, and I'm not sure that we should consider Stonehenge as from a more advanced civilization. It's more of a location than a relic anyway. You could spin it as tech, but you could also spin it as crude stone-age monoliths capping some natural planar phenomenon. In both cases it might plausibly be dangerous to muck with, but there's no necessity for advanced tech to get that functionality.

The Axe of the Dwarvish Lords seems to commemorate an achievement of conquest & culture rather than a technological or magical peak. Many relics follow that pattern: an important thing happened, therefore some part of that important thing is now a powerful item. For example, Dhalver-nar was a historically important Cleric, so now each of his teeth has a power. It's not about advanced dental technology, it's just an association with a fateful historical event.

I didn't actually remember which sources had which material, just that all the Rod of Seven Parts material talks about the Vaati and vice versa. Here are two supporting quotes that came up on a quick search:

Thanks for looking those up, it seems that one source gives details, one gives a modestly supportive broad stroke, and the other ~7 do not support your point at all.

That's well within the bounds of what I had originally said:

(...) the Wind Dukes of Aaqa are just a broad-stroke allusion in most sources.

So, I think in the final analysis your sources agree with my point.

Actually, when 3e came out, people liked it due to its simplicity, as it was head and shoulders better than AD&D when it came to mechanical unity, clarity of prose, standardization of structure, and so forth. The idea that people like 3e because it's "overly complicated" is a meme that arose during the 3e/4e edition wars to support the "4e streamlined everything so it's better" narrative, and doesn't at all reflect the opinion on 3e at the time

3e systematized things which had been ad-hoc in 2e, just as 2e systematized things which had been ad-hoc in 1e.

The 3e systematization did simplify some things, but also allowed for new types of complexity.

By the end of its run, 3.x was probably just as complicated as 2e had been, albeit in different ways.

(4e didn't live long enough to become the complexity villain, but if it had been as well-supported in terms of content, it might have gotten there eventually.)

There is one other consideration for Prestige Options and how they fit in, to use them as "patches" for certain thematic/mechanical combos that seem effective but actually aren't. For example, combining the Lightning Warrior with the Thundermancer sounds like it'd be a cool, thematic character, but limitations to the system prevent those classes' features from working with one another. In DnD terms, an example of this is a situation where you can't attack and cast a spell at the same time, so you're stuck being EITHER a Thundermancer OR a Lightning Warrior rather than feeling like both at once.

A Prestige Option-esc change to the game can fix that. However, these are less of a "specialized class" sort of deal, and more of a "If you happen to be these two things, here's some glue to hold them together". A good way of implementing that is providing a bonus based on the lowest level class in the combo. For example, "If you make an attack, you can cast a spell as part of your attack from the Thundermancer spell list, as long as that spell has no higher spell level than the lowest of your Thundermancer and Lightning Warrior levels". This rewards someone who dabbles, as well as those who lean into the Prestige Option, but doesn't require someone to do either as that'd be against the point.

As glue they leave a lot to be desired, and if you're going to homebrew a PrC for a specific character then that begs the question -- why not just homebrew a base class for that class combo?

Duskblade might be a good place to start, for that theoretical archetype.

------ ====== ------

One value I see in PrCs is giving players something to aim their builds at.

It's potentially negative value if you never homebrew, but if you do homebrew then you can give campaign-appropriate and setting-specific targets for the players to hit.

(Which they're free to ignore, of course -- but when they later see these PrCs in the wild, they'll have a ballpark for capability and organizational details.)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Tovag Baragu is basically a fantasy interplanar Stonehenge, and I'm not sure that we should consider Stonehenge as from a more advanced civilization. It's more of a location than a relic anyway. You could spin it as tech, but you could also spin it as crude stone-age monoliths capping some natural planar phenomenon. In both cases it might plausibly be dangerous to muck with, but there's no necessity for advanced tech to get that functionality.

The Axe of the Dwarvish Lords seems to commemorate an achievement of conquest & culture rather than a technological or magical peak. Many relics follow that pattern: an important thing happened, therefore some part of that important thing is now a powerful item. For example, Dhalver-nar was a historically important Cleric, so now each of his teeth has a power. It's not about advanced dental technology, it's just an association with a fateful historical event.

Artifacts generally have an association with particular historical periods or events, sure, that's how they get famous. But the point I was originally making, you may recall, is that the fallen civilizations are generally assumed to be more advanced than current ones because they leave axes of dwarvish lords and Tovag...Baragus? Baragii? lying around in excellent condition and perfect working order for later generations to find, as opposed to real-world less-advanced civilizations that might leave some ruins and fragments of cuneiform and that's it because their materials and construction practices aren't up to snuff.

Whether Tovags Baragu are artifacts because they make gates themselves or because they harness and channel natural gates doesn't actually matter, because in either case modern Oeridian arcanists don't know how they work and can't recreate them. If the actual Stonehenge was made of pillars of an unknown type of stone that could take nuclear bombs to the face without a scratch and looked like they hadn't aged a day over the past five millennia, and walking through a Stonehenge arch could teleport someone to Mars with a step, we'd consider the Stonehenge-builders pretty darn advanced even if we discovered that Stonehenge was "merely" a control mechanism for some sort of natural teleportation phenomenon.

And, more importantly for general setting fluff, once you've established that Ancient Baklun and Suel and all those other fallen high-magic civilizations left a bunch of artifacts lying around, it's easy to justify any number of new artifacts and relics with "Oh, those silly Baklunish, look what else they got up to" without having to have one-off spaceship crashes or planar-conjuctions-of-the-week for each one.

Thanks for looking those up, it seems that one source gives details, one gives a modestly supportive broad stroke, and the other ~7 do not support your point at all.

That's well within the bounds of what I had originally said:

So, I think in the final analysis your sources agree with my point.

You said one "could" write up a backstory where the Ro7P is from a more advanced civilization and there could be other reasonable explanations. I pointed out that that's already the case because the Vaati had an interplanar empire, and that the Rod already has a singular official backstory. You objected to that by saying they were just an allusion in most sources, which doesn't say anything about whether they actually had such an empire. I said they explicitly had an interplanar empire. You found a single source that was merely an allusion that didn't actually disprove them having an empire while claiming to have more sources. I showed there were multiple other later sources on the Vaati that you weren't considering. You pulled out another source that didn't disprove them having an empire. I provided quotes showing that they did, indeed, have an interplanar empire. Your "final analysis" that you'd have to invent the Vaati civilization that already explicitly exists is wrong.

It's as if you said "Sure, you could come up with an interpretation that Darth Vader is secretly Luke Skywalker's father, I guess," and I pointed out the "No, I am your father!" line in ESB and the pregnancy plotline in AotC, and you insisted that because only 2 of the 9 Star Wars episodes refer to him being Luke's father and Vader and Luke are merely mentioned in other context in the other movies that they're not actually related.

3e systematized things which had been ad-hoc in 2e, just as 2e systematized things which had been ad-hoc in 1e.

The 3e systematization did simplify some things, but also allowed for new types of complexity.

By the end of its run, 3.x was probably just as complicated as 2e had been, albeit in different ways.

Oh, it definitely ended up on the more complex end, I was just objecting to the idea that people were attracted to 3e because of its complication when in fact people switched over originally because, comparing 3e core to 2e core at the time of 3e's release, 3e was vastly simpler and more approachable.

One value I see in PrCs is giving players something to aim their builds at.

It's potentially negative value if you never homebrew, but if you do homebrew then you can give campaign-appropriate and setting-specific targets for the players to hit.

(Which they're free to ignore, of course -- but when they later see these PrCs in the wild, they'll have a ballpark for capability and organizational details.)

Agreed. "Red Wizard" is a cool thing to want to be in a way that "random normal specialist wizard with some sort of Circle Magic feat" is not, and the fact that one must be 6th+ level to officially be a Red Wizard automatically gives them a minimum threat level in a way that "here's a bunch of normal specialist wizards who wear red a lot" does not. Not all PrCs should be associated with an organization in that way, certainly, but such PrCs do have tangible advantages over setting-based archetypes/subclasses/paragon paths/etc.

[Nifft]

Artifacts generally have an association with particular historical periods or events, sure, that's how they get famous. But the point I was originally making, you may recall, is that the fallen civilizations are generally assumed to be more advanced than current ones because they leave axes of dwarvish lords and Tovag...Baragus? Baragii? lying around in excellent condition and perfect working order for later generations to find, as opposed to real-world less-advanced civilizations that might leave some ruins and fragments of cuneiform and that's it because their materials and construction practices aren't up to snuff.

Whether Tovags Baragu are artifacts because they make gates themselves or because they harness and channel natural gates doesn't actually matter, because in either case modern Oeridian arcanists don't know how they work and can't recreate them. If the actual Stonehenge was made of pillars of an unknown type of stone that could take nuclear bombs to the face without a scratch and looked like they hadn't aged a day over the past five millennia, and walking through a Stonehenge arch could teleport someone to Mars with a step, we'd consider the Stonehenge-builders pretty darn advanced even if we discovered that Stonehenge was "merely" a control mechanism for some sort of natural teleportation phenomenon.

And, more importantly for general setting fluff, once you've established that Ancient Baklun and Suel and all those other fallen high-magic civilizations left a bunch of artifacts lying around, it's easy to justify any number of new artifacts and relics with "Oh, those silly Baklunish, look what else they got up to" without having to have one-off spaceship crashes or planar-conjuctions-of-the-week for each one.

At this point, though, what you've done is some sleight-of-hand.

Your argument is now:
- Advanced civilizations once existed, and they're gone now.
- Here's a thing we don't understand and can't reproduce.
- Since nobody can prove the thing didn't come from the advanced civ, therefore it did.

I think this falls under confirmation bias.

You said one "could" write up a backstory where the Ro7P is from a more advanced civilization and there could be other reasonable explanations. I pointed out that that's already the case because the Vaati had an interplanar empire, and that the Rod already has a singular official backstory. You objected to that by saying they were just an allusion in most sources, which doesn't say anything about whether they actually had such an empire. I said they explicitly had an interplanar empire. You found a single source that was merely an allusion that didn't actually disprove them having an empire while claiming to have more sources. I showed there were multiple other later sources on the Vaati that you weren't considering. You pulled out another source that didn't disprove them having an empire. I provided quotes showing that they did, indeed, have an interplanar empire. Your "final analysis" that you'd have to invent the Vaati civilization that already explicitly exists is wrong.

Uh, no, what I'm saying is that using the Rod in your game doesn't require owning every source that ever existed, nor poring through them to find one which contains more detail, and then importing that one source into your home game.

I'm saying that the artifact appeared in many places, and having any one of those places available gives you enough to use the artifact -- but most do not contain your preferred backstory, and that means the artifact can and will appear in many games run by people who never even read, let alone accepted, that backstory.

It's as if you said "Sure, you could come up with an interpretation that Darth Vader is secretly Luke Skywalker's father, I guess," and I pointed out the "No, I am your father!" line in ESB and the pregnancy plotline in AotC, and you insisted that because only 2 of the 9 Star Wars episodes refer to him being Luke's father and Vader and Luke are merely mentioned in other context in the other movies that they're not actually related.

That's not an honest comparison, and you ought to be smart enough to have known that already.

D&D modules are optional supplements, which are not at all like sequels to the DMG.

Oh, it definitely ended up on the more complex end, I was just objecting to the idea that people were attracted to 3e because of its complication when in fact people switched over originally because, comparing 3e core to 2e core at the time of 3e's release, 3e was vastly simpler and more approachable.

3e was very approachable early because it addressed the best-known problems and issues of 2e. That created new areas for complexity to emerge, and of course that's exactly what happened.

4e did the same thing, and so did 5e.

The surprising thing 5e seems to be doing in contrast to all previous editions is tightening its publication belt and not pushing out too many new books -- though I guess it could be argued that oD&D and BECMI kinda did that already.

Agreed. "Red Wizard" is a cool thing to want to be in a way that "random normal specialist wizard with some sort of Circle Magic feat" is not, and the fact that one must be 6th+ level to officially be a Red Wizard automatically gives them a minimum threat level in a way that "here's a bunch of normal specialist wizards who wear red a lot" does not. Not all PrCs should be associated with an organization in that way, certainly, but such PrCs do have tangible advantages over setting-based archetypes/subclasses/paragon paths/etc.

Organizational PrCs were an idea with some merit, which was executed poorly, perhaps due to the conflicting uses each was supposed to present.

Paragon Paths could in theory capture a lot of the good parts, and avoid most of the conflict factors, but they have too much 4e on them to make much headway in the current emotional meta-game.

[NigelWalmsley]

Paragon Paths could in theory capture a lot of the good parts, and avoid most of the conflict factors, but they have too much 4e on them to make much headway in the current emotional meta-game.

I'm pretty sure if you named them Prestige Classes, but used the mechanics for Paragon Paths where they're better, no one would care. The people who are going to do that kind of hate by association are not the people who will dig deep enough to notice, provided you make a game that is good instead of bad.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Spoilering the increasingly-tangential aside about fallen civilizations:

Spoiler

Show

At this point, though, what you've done is some sleight-of-hand.

Your argument is now:
- Advanced civilizations once existed, and they're gone now.
- Here's a thing we don't understand and can't reproduce.
- Since nobody can prove the thing didn't come from the advanced civ, therefore it did.

I think this falls under confirmation bias.

I didn't change my argument at all. Here's how this tangent started:

Any fallen civilizations of note in D&D settings are generally assumed to be more advanced than current because an equivalent or less-advanced civilizations wouldn't leave eternally-powered nigh-impervious relics around for the modern era to find.

D&D magic being a thing means that an individual can create an eternally-powered nigh-impervious relic without the aid of any particular infrastructure.

Anyone can do the "eternally-powered" part, but by "nigh-impervious" I was referring to actual minor and major artifacts, which are head and shoulders above modern items power-wise, generally unique in capability, and specifically no longer creatable in the modern era.

The first two bullets are things I've been saying the whole time, and the last bullet is you taking my claiming "fallen advanced civilizations are a generic piece of background flavor used for a bunch of artifacts in a bunch of settings" and turning that into me claiming "all artifacts always and forever come from fallen advanced civilizations because that's the only possible explanation given" for some reason.

Uh, no, what I'm saying is that using the Rod in your game doesn't require owning every source that ever existed, nor poring through them to find one which contains more detail, and then importing that one source into your home game.

I'm saying that the artifact appeared in many places, and having any one of those places available gives you enough to use the artifact -- but most do not contain your preferred backstory, and that means the artifact can and will appear in many games run by people who never even read, let alone accepted, that backstory.

That's not an honest comparison, and you ought to be smart enough to have known that already.

D&D modules are optional supplements, which are not at all like sequels to the DMG.

You're claiming that a few paragraphs of DM-fills-in-the-blanks flavor about the Rod in the 1e DMG are more influential and accepted than the 2e adventure module that literally revolves around the Rod and has multiple Vaati actually show up and meet the PCs or the two 3e adventures in a hugely popular adventure path that literally revolve around discovering the lore of the Vaati. Of those three sources, I doubt it's the latter two that run into the the "never even read" issue for people using the Vaati in their games.

Further, if I google "Rod of Seven Parts" the first hit I get is the Wikipedia page for the module, not the artifact itself, and the 1e DMG entry for the Rod isn't even cited anywhere on the page; if I google "Vaati D&D" the first official source I get is an online copy of the 2e Monstrous Manual entry, from which the later Dragon writeup on the Vaati was copy-pasted almost verbatim. Anyone coming into the game fresh who hasn't read any of those sources is going to get pointed to the full 2e and 3e sources rather than the sketched-out 1e source.

Saying that the Wind Dukes were a well-known advanced ancient civilization based on what have been the definitive sources on them for the past 24 years shouldn't really be a controversial statement, and comparing ignoring all that to ignoring ESB and RotS in favor of ANH and TPM is, I'd say, plenty fair.

Organizational PrCs were an idea with some merit, which was executed poorly, perhaps due to the conflicting uses each was supposed to present.

Paragon Paths could in theory capture a lot of the good parts, and avoid most of the conflict factors, but they have too much 4e on them to make much headway in the current emotional meta-game.

I'm pretty sure if you named them Prestige Classes, but used the mechanics for Paragon Paths where they're better, no one would care. The people who are going to do that kind of hate by association are not the people who will dig deep enough to notice, provided you make a game that is good instead of bad.

Agreed. 5e subclasses already resemble 4e's Theme+Path+Destiny setup more than any other "advanced class option" setup to someone only looking at D&D and not considering PF archetypes or other third-party takes on the same idea, and 5e explicitly divides the game into explicit tiers with pretty sharp breakpoints similarly to 4e, and both things seem to be pretty well received even by virulently anti-4e players. If 5e Unearthed Arcana were to come out tomorrow with an article on making separate "heroic subclasses" and "paragon subclasses" and "epic subclasses" for more class customization options, I bet most players wouldn't even blink.

[Segev]

Agreed. 5e subclasses already resemble 4e's Theme+Path+Destiny setup more than any other "advanced class option" setup to someone only looking at D&D and not considering PF archetypes or other third-party takes on the same idea, and 5e explicitly divides the game into explicit tiers with pretty sharp breakpoints similarly to 4e, and both things seem to be pretty well received even by virulently anti-4e players. If 5e Unearthed Arcana were to come out tomorrow with an article on making separate "heroic subclasses" and "paragon subclasses" and "epic subclasses" for more class customization options, I bet most players wouldn't even blink.

While I know this is "Segev's opinion" as much as anything, my reactions to 4e have been pretty spot-on with the majority anti-4e reactions, so I will use my own metrics to explain why I think think you're right, PairO'Dice Lost. What drove me away from 4e was how every class felt the same, mechanically. They all used the same subsystem, one based on 3e's Martial Adepts. And I liked 3e's Martial Adepts, but I didn't want them to be the only subsystem in the game.

5e moved away from that, and gave different subsystems to different classes and subclasses, which lends to feeling like you're playing something different when you play a cleric versus when you play a fighter vs. when you play a rogue. So long as these hypothetical "paragon subclasses" and "epic subclasses" preserved 5e's existing approach to subsystems, you're right: nobody would bat an eye at them in the "3e v 4e wars" sense. (There would be lots of criticism and lots of praise as people digested the new mechanics and argued over whether they were any good or not, but that's something that's been true since AT LEAST 3e.)

[El Dorado]

I had one really good experience with one of my characters achieving a prestige class, specifically the eldritch knight. This was prior to Pathfinder debuting the magus class, so armored melee fighter/wizard combos took some work. I had built into my character's backstory as a driving goal so he was always laser-focused on making it happen.

Mechanically, it was definitely rocky. First level as wizard to get a masterwork sword as a starting item (and a bonded item at that). I insisted that the character wear armor, but even with the arcane armor feats, more than one spell fizzled in combat. Also, it was a homebrew setting so special materials (like mithral) or specific items (elven chainmail) that could help with ASF% weren't available.

Due to campaign events, he didn't achieve eldritch knight until after wizard 5/fighter 3 but it was memorable. The DM portrayed EKs as an arcane paladin order of sorts, complete with a code of conduct and having the other PCs speak on my character's behalf during the initiation ceremony.

The journey was sometimes frustrating because the mechanics and available items weren't what I envisioned. But the prestige class format (it's not something you start with but build to) helped keep me engaged despite any shortcomings.

[Psyren]

Even after the debut of hybrid classes like Magus, there are some concepts that Prestige Classes can help with. For example, one of my favorite uses for Eldritch Knight is alongside a White-Haired Witch. The opportunity cost is low (you have no hexes to give up, and your hair gains all its powers along with 15ft. reach by 8th level) but in return you get nearly double the BAB you would have gotten with straight witch, a stronger fort save, access to fighter-only feats, and the spell critical ability.

[Segev]

Even after the debut of hybrid classes like Magus, there are some concepts that Prestige Classes can help with. For example, one of my favorite uses for Eldritch Knight is alongside a White-Haired Witch. The opportunity cost is low (you have no hexes to give up, and your hair gains all its powers along with 15ft. reach by 8th level) but in return you get nearly double the BAB you would have gotten with straight witch, a stronger fort save, access to fighter-only feats, and the spell critical ability.

While I do not dispute your point, I think that speaks more to a flaw with the White Haired Witch than anything else.

In fact, I wrote an alternative where all the white haired witch powers are hexes, and you just play a normal witch to get them.

[Psyren]

While I do not dispute your point, I think that speaks more to a flaw with the White Haired Witch than anything else.

In fact, I wrote an alternative where all the white haired witch powers are hexes, and you just play a normal witch to get them.

That's a fair point. Losing Major and Grand hexes for rogue talents was really an abomination. That, and a combat-focused witch (which even the archetype's blurb said it was trying to be) staying at 1/2 BAB and d6 HD with its signature weapon not scaling in any way other than gaining reach was unfortunate to say the least.

Granted, it's a signature weapon it can use even when shapeshifted, so that's still something.

[EndlessKng]

No you don't. Against their rough equivalents, sure. But it's fine if there's content that doesn't get used much. You should have a better basic methodology in writing PRCs than was the norm in much of 3e, but there doesn't have to be this tight claw around the content that's allowed to exist so that only the stuff that's part of some perfect, enclosed framework is allowed in.

If the worry is these public events like the adventurers league or whatever, just implement something like Magic where only core content plus current season content is allowed -- or just use pregen characters.

You don't even need to go as far as "core+current season." AL already implements a rule that says you can have only your core book and one other supplement in your build, with I believe an exception for spells. This allows for new content to be tested against only one source - the core books - for official play. If people come up with broken concepts in home games, that's on the DM, but the official games are limited so that any character can individually only pull from two sources.

-

As for Prestige Classes, I definitely have grown to see some of the flaws in them, but I still enjoy them. Archetypes are fun and all, but there's a major flaw in the flavoring of archetypes: you're limited in how many you can take. In Pathfinder, you're limited by needing to avoid overlapping feature adjustment; in D&D, you basically get one per class, that's it. And yes, this keeps some mechanical things in check, but it also makes situations where you have difficulty hitting certain themes in the build through a single class or even multiclassing. Yes, I can go off and call my evoker a war wizard if I want to, but if the features of the war wizard subclass, which is mutually exclusive from the evoker, are what define a war wizard in the world, then I can't get both options. You can't be both a samurai and an eldritch knight; you could get some similar effects by dipping to warlock and picking up Pact of the Blade at third level to summon your ancestral weapon to your hand and then unload on your opponent, but that has a different flavor from the Eldritch Knight. With prestige classes, in an ideal situation, I have the opportunity to blend my flavoring more. Now, the fact that later supplements added base classes that tapped into thematic territory of prior prestige classes did throw this off, but when you're looking at the core classes in 3.5, you can see how prestige classes can add extra flavor and back it up with mechanical tweaks.

Pathfinder showed ways to lessen the need for prestige classes as flavor with both the variable archetypes and the psuedo-feats in each class - your hexes and arcana and other choices you made every other level from a class-specific list. That may have been a smarter tack in the long run overall, and does capture a better balance between making one class have a lot of flavor potential and backing it up with some mechanical benefit as appropriate. I also like 4e's ways of using a side mechanic to the class progression like themes and paragon paths and epic destinies, though again that felt a little too limiting (but less so than 5e archetypes because they happened separate from an archetype-like selection - that selection may influence the choices somewhat but they could be made independently if archetype isn't a prereq). But given the context they arose in, Prestige classes conceptually made sense, and I think there could still be some room for them out there with some tweaking.

(Side note: I personally disagree with the idea of just putting the onus on DMs to come up with org benefits rather than having classes or archetypes or something solid in a book represent it; some DMs struggle with homebrewing stuff, and others will just refuse and force you to stick with what's in the book. And while the latter is problematic in its own way, there shouldn't be a stigma against DMs who just lack the mechanical graspings to freely homebrew even small things for fear of unbalancing the game - giving them a bit of a boost in the form of something concrete in the actual rules can help those DMs out a lot and take the stress off of them. If you are confident you can do it well, then great, but don't force someone to have to homebrew when they don't feel confident in their ability to do so).