Conceptual value of Prestige Classes?

[Quertus]

(EDIT: yes, this thread is intentionally under "role-playing", not "3e")

When trying to respond to this thread about my "perfect" game, I ran into an issue: Prestige Classes.

So, Classes have value (both positive and negative). The names are evocative. They give a sense of "belonging". They pidgin hole. They tie unrelated advancement together. They make building and describing a character easier than point buy.

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.

Prestige. It's right there in the name. Sure, there's other Thieves, but I'm a… Outlaw Trapfinder. Or whatever.

Cool build minigame. 'nuff said.

Customization. What 2e did for variety with kits, Skills & Powers, etc, 3e does with Prestige Classes (and more base classes).

Growth. This is what I would *like* Prestige Classes to represent, and what they fail at hardest. Because of the prerequisites, you really have to plan your Prestige Classes ahead of time, and they really poorly model organic growth of the character.

So, what do you see as the value of Prestige Classes? How do other systems / how would you achieve those goals?

[Jorren]

The biggest issue I saw in Prestige Classes was the implementation. Specifically, that you could not enter them at low (or 1st levels).

While I understand that the concept was to discover them during play or to serve as a role-playing experience, waiting until 6th level (in most cases) was just a non-starter. Players often come up with a concept and want to get into the concept as soon as possible, and I believe that prestige classes would have been better served if you could enter them earlier. By 6th level many campaigns were winding down given the lack of interest in playing to higher levels.

There was also the issue that there were just too many of them and that books were regularly published with them. Given the overly narrow focus of many of them it came across as filler or padding to increase page count. Most of them I never gave a second glance.

So yes, the concept wasn't bad. Just the implementation was uninteresting and bland.

[Nifft]

That "sense of belonging" thing seems like more of a Prestige Class feature than a trait of classes in general.

Another thing it gives the DM is a handle which can translate in-game PC knowledge into meta-game player expectations.

Like, a hooded figure in an alleyway says, "The Shadow Thieves of Amn wish to meet with you." -- and the players can go look up how badass a Shadow Thief of Amn might be, and what sorts of things they can do, and then the players can make an informed decision about how to deal with them.

Or they can hear about Archmage Kalfragilist, and they know that NPC is at least level X to be an Archmage.

[Grek]

In my eyes, the biggest advantage to a prestige class is to allow the designers to adjust a character's conceptual limits as they progress in power.

For most people, it is easy to imagine both a low level Wizard and a low level Fighter taking on an Ogre and both making a valued contribution to the encounter. But once you move to higher levels and the party is facing down against an Osyluth (who has an aura of fear, the ability to teleport, fly, turn invisible and conjure walls of ice) it becomes more difficult to imagine what a Fighter-style character could do to contribute. Which is where prestige classes come in: At some point the Fighter should prestige-class into a Lunar Soldier or a Paladin or a Grove Warden or a Rightful King or a Dragon Knight or some other class that is basically a Fighter plus some extra concept on top of being a Fighter. D&D doesn't really do this very well, and as a result Fighters don't do so hot if their GM doesn't decide to give them magic items or special mounts which supply the needed abilities that their class doesn't cover.

Conversely, if you ask most people whether a high level magic user might be able to do X (for whatever value of X you might choose), there's a strong temptation to imagine if there's any magic user out there who could do it and only say No if you can't think of one. Raising the dead? Sure. Summon bears? Yeah. Rainbow bridge to Valhalla? Okay. Blow up a city? Probably. Turn invisible? Yep. Turn an army into bees? I guess? Which is where prestige classes come into things: you make the Wizard pick a more specific concept like Necromancer, Illusionist, Pyromancer, Shapeshifter, etc. and only let them pick things that are in-theme instead of cherry picking all the best options off of all of the spells you've ever written. D&D already does this a bit by making some spells only appear on the Cleric list and not on the Wizard list, but it could stand to do it more.

[Dienekes]

Personally, I think it's rare for prestige classes to offer something that something like 5es subclass system doesn't. They're both a means of focusing down on the specifics of what you want your class to do. All subclasses and most prestige classes do this. Sometimes prestige classes require multiclassing two different classes, but many which do that just follow the general path of one of the classes while adding on abilities or flavor of the other class in a more unified whole. And this too could easily be replicated with a subclass system, often more elegantly than the original prestige class.

However, there is really one reason I can see a prestige class working and having value, and that's when the class itself can be equally placed as a continuation of multiple different classes.

For just a completely made up example, let's say there was some Super Enchanter Prestige class that focuses on mind controlling powers in a way that can be structured to fit and expand on the abilities of a Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard and can work equally well for any of them? That's a prestige class.

[Cluedrew]

Another thing I don't think has been mentioned is something like 4th's tiers (perhaps very roughly). That is growth is now not just scaling up (more levels in the existing class) the character actually changes in focus as they grow (getting a new class). Now depending on how the classes are actually structured you can probably get the same mechanical effect without this, but it does serve to label the concept.

But once you move to higher levels and the party is facing down against an Osyluth (who has an aura of fear, the ability to teleport, fly, turn invisible and conjure walls of ice) it becomes more difficult to imagine what a Fighter-style character could do to contribute.

Oh challenge acc- actually that would be getting off topic. But I never figured out why people seem to have so much trouble with this other than only seeming to have the low level fighter in mind.

[Belac93]

I do prestige classes as basically magic items: they can be uncommon, rare, legendary, etc, and provide benefits accordingly.

[Ason]

This is a case where I think 4e handled specialization pretty well.

• In levels 1-10, you're learning your base class but still have plenty of customization choices in terms of feats, abilities, items, etc. This lets you get the feel for your class, keeps you from being overwhelmed by having to figure out multiple classes at once, and still allows you to specialize.
• Then from 11-20, you layer a paragon path on top of your base class. So for instance, my Barbarian and my buddy's Druid can both pick the Gatekeeper Mystagogue paragon path, yet we will still feel unique, both compared to each other and to other characters who share our base classes but choose different paragon paths.
• Then from 21-30, you layer an epic destiny on top of the base class instead. Again this adds a layer of uniqueness, since a Demigod Wizard and Archmage Wizard will play slightly differently, but at their core they are still both wizards.

While I love 3.5 and PF, what I respect in 4e's system is you add the "prestige" stuff on top of your base class, so you're never forced into choosing between being good at your base mechanics or getting some cool unique powers. You always get both, but the customization classes comes at late enough levels and with low enough prerequisites that you're not overwhelmed with choices out of the gate and aren't punished for not planning your entire character from start to finish. 4e is definitely a flawed game, albeit still fun in its own way, so this system's innovations were hampered by everything else around it, but I see a lot of potential in this layering classes approach to prestige / customization.

[Zarrgon]

Prestige Classes are a great idea....but then they fumble it, even more so with the crunch.

I think the big idea is Focus: you can make your Generic Character stand out as a single thing, so much so that your base class is hidden. A gnome Arcane Trickster would forever SAY he is an Arcane Trickster, not whatever dull base classes they were (and still are) before.

The mechanical crunch was a good idea, but few prestige classes lived up to the hype. Take Loremaster. I LOVE LOVE the idea of being a lore wizard...the Master of lost and secret lore! Ok, so I take a level in the prestige class and get a "secret"...like, er, +3 hit points or plus to a save. Um...ok, not exactly the "lore" I was thinking of. Then comes languages and boring dull spells. And.....nothing.

Worse is I have to wait 5 to 10 levels to even take the first level of Loremaster.

[Phhase]

Prestige Classes are a great idea....but then they fumble it, even more so with the crunch.

I think the big idea is Focus: you can make your Generic Character stand out as a single thing, so much so that your base class is hidden. A gnome Arcane Trickster would forever SAY he is an Arcane Trickster, not whatever dull base classes they were (and still are) before.

The mechanical crunch was a good idea, but few prestige classes lived up to the hype. Take Loremaster. I LOVE LOVE the idea of being a lore wizard...the Master of lost and secret lore! Ok, so I take a level in the prestige class and get a "secret"...like, er, +3 hit points or plus to a save. Um...ok, not exactly the "lore" I was thinking of. Then comes languages and boring dull spells. And.....nothing.

Worse is I have to wait 5 to 10 levels to even take the first level of Loremaster.

I've got a similar beef here with prestige classes, and 3e in general: 3e tends to abstract complex fantasies into bland flat bonuses or penalties. For example, the aforementioned "mysterious arcane secrets" being...a flat stat bonus. It works from the other end as well: tons of enemies have abilities that sound interesting only for them to be boiled down to "Does ability damage" or "effectively knows these spells". That's one of the things that I think 5e made some progress in, adding unique attacks and abilities...although it does have a similar over-abstraction problem with the overuse of advantage and disadvantage.

On one hand, I get why 3e used ability damage as a default mix-in (3e is already overflowing with mechanics) but I think there's a medium between both editions to be found. It is strange to me that there is exactly 1 use of ability damage in all of 5e (The Shadow), though I do understand the rationale.

[Grek]

Another thing I don't think has been mentioned is something like 4th's tiers (perhaps very roughly). That is growth is now not just scaling up (more levels in the existing class) the character actually changes in focus as they grow (getting a new class). Now depending on how the classes are actually structured you can probably get the same mechanical effect without this, but it does serve to label the concept.

Oh challenge acc- actually that would be getting off topic. But I never figured out why people seem to have so much trouble with this other than only seeming to have the low level fighter in mind.

4e style tiers are exactly what I'm getting at, actually. The low level fighter doesn't have the ability to (for example) bust through walls*, see invisible stuff, or pursue someone who teleports away, and scaling them up in a purely numerical sense won't grant those abilities either. So need to expand not only vertically, but also horizontally into someone who can do those things in addition to being even better as a Fighter. And a prestige class (or a 4e tier, which is conceptually similar to requiring everyone to take a prestige class at a particular level) is a good way to handle that sideways upgrade. And the same thing is true from the Wizard angle - when the Wizard hits the requisite level to go up a tier, they should be asked to specialize into a specific kind of Wizard and grab higher tier spells from that specialized list.

*Yes, the Fighter can break through a wall by hitting it really hard. But that takes actions, possibly multiple actions depending on the exact character, and is not quite the balance point I would like Fighter-style characters in this scenario to be hitting. Thus the desire for prestige classes and/or other character options which allow the Fighter to do more than the raw numbers would otherwise allow.

[Gnoman]

From a design standpoint, prestige classes can be an excellent concept if you have a very small number of base classes feeding into them. Having a small baseload can make introducing new players close to painless, because they have less to keep track of. Low-level play is quick and simple, and prestige classes come into play just as the novices are ready to handle more mechanical complexity. It would also allow players to feel out a GM before committing to a specialization, and thus avoid a playstyle the GM is ill-suited for, or one that the current group isn't pursuing.


Where it doesn't work is a system where you have eighty bajillion base classes, most of which are far superior to almost all prestige classes.

[Cazero]

A class needs to be narrow enough to be given actual abilities, and broad enough to catch a variety of characters. The concept of class upgrade is not a bad idea : it allows you to narrow down your class to earn more specific goodies after you reach the point where you're powerful enough for said goodies to be justified.

Prestige classes will forever be associated with 3e's terrible implementation of that good idea. Taking one was made optional, so all hope to preserve the little balance that was there was ditched in a heartbeat. Some are straight up trap options. And many fill ridiculous niches with pointless setting-specific ties that would have been better implemented with magic items, feats, skill points allocation, or one sentence in the character biography.

[Psyren]

For the most part I don't really see a point to them, at least not one that archetypes or subclasses can't pull off better. If you want your Fighter or Monk or Alchemist etc to specialize or stand out from the generalists in some way, archetypes are usually superior - you get to feel special from level one, and you don't have to have built your character a specific way (i.e. to meet the prereqs as soon as possible) regardless of whether they knew anything about the chosen PrC in-character yet or not. And even if you do want the whole fantasy of "X organization sees your character's skill and contacts you to be a member" - that is just as plausibly achieved (perhaps even more plausibly) via retraining under the tutelage of a member, which Pathfinder lets you do. For example, if your generalist Bard learns about the Dawnflower Dervishes and seeks to join them (or conversely, if they hear about your bard and think you would be a great fit) - it's much more plausible imo for your bard to retrain their existing build to focus on those techniques, swapping out various baseline abilities for those of the organization, and keeping/benefiting from all the other high-level bard stuff like spellcasting that they had earned up until that point.

One advantage to PrCs though is that they can more easily represent a path that multiple classes can follow - especially if the class in question behaves differently based on how you enter it. Something like Living Monolith or Evangelist is trickier to pull off without making it a PrC for example.

[Morty]

Prestige classes were more of a band-aid than anything, made to cover two issues. First was 3E D&D's character creation being suffocatingly restrictive. Thus prestige classes were made to cover the many, many concepts base classes couldn't cover. Second, which came later, was that multiclassing spellcasters was a trap. Thus PrCs were made to let them multiclass without crippling themselves.

Having started out on rocky terrain, the implementation certainly didn't help. PrCs typically kicked in at level 6 at the earliest, meaning that you had to spend your first few levels in mediocrity. They also had prerequisites, which meant that in order to actually use them you had to carefully map out your build - which didn't help the "wallow in mediocrity for a while" impression. And then of course the designers cranked out a metric ton of them to pad out sourcebooks. Most were something you wouldn't look at twice, some few were reasonably well-balanced and some were hopelessly broken.

In other words, PrCs are probably best left forgotten. They had little value to start with and their poor execution just doomed them. They're not needed in a system even a little better-designed than 3E D&D. Archetypes do their job better in 5E and PF both.

[MoiMagnus]

I will have to agree with others saying that I didn't like their implementation, for the most part.

Prestige classes cover multiple different things:
0) Band aid for a broken system.
1) Weird concepts. Some concepts are too "big" to be a feat or a feat chain, but too "small" to be a full class, and too universal to be a subclass/archetype. As such, they are classes whose only purpose is to be used through multiclassing, never as a main class.
2) Career change. Some concept just do not feel right as "I always was that way". Being a planar traveller is not something your character was since level one. Taking such a prestige class is the opportunity to change character playstyle (probably through a timeskip in-universe), and as such should come with possibility for re-specialisation [You lose some feats and/or some class capacities, trading them against new effects that match better your new capabilities].

I personally think that 5e should have a second kind of subclasses at higher level to cover those concepts (e.g. at level 15 you chose an epic destiny) . However, since most tables don't go further than level 10, I understand that it is not worth it in development time...

[Aotrs Commander]

Conceptually, none whatsoever, from my perspective.

There is merit to them mechanically, to a degree, inso much as they are are way to provide an additional set of mechanical options to a character that doesn't always gel well with a base class (especilly in terms of direct hybridisation) and that's ho I've always treated them. The 6th level+ option was a problem, as someone mentioned; so far stuff like Mystic Thurge - one of the most useful PrC, since it actually hybridises - I have simply reduced the requirements such that it can be entered at level 3 (which also has the advantage of slanting the spell level progression faster at lower levels and slower at higher levels where the spells are more powerful).

My problem with PrC is essentially rooted in the name itself, in that they were tied to lore at all. I simply fundementally disagree that a class shold be tied to an organisation, or that class is anything other than a metagame construct to define your character's set of mechanical abilities. (Notably, the very first tbing we ditched from 3.0 was multiclassing restrictions (along with favoured classes), followed very shortly by alignment restrictions with the sole exception of the paladin and whatever evil equivilent I had in the rules at the time (antipaladin, now).)

Far, far too many PrC were just a bunch of naff flavour, the vast majority of such that were unsuitably for any homebrew worlds backed up by weak mechanics.

I believe PF's archtypes, in concert with 3.5's alternative class abilities, cover a lot of - though not all - of the ground that PrC in 3.0/3.5 needed to cover. I think there is still benefit to PrCs, especially with hybrid spellcaster class (mystic theurge/cerebremancer/PF Arcane Trickster); hell, I STILL had to make a few of my own, since there were GLARING gaps, notably in [cleric]/[rogue] (stunningly common, given that Kuo-Toa Exist) and [druid]/[cleric]. Though the name is rather moe subject to debate, though probably not worth changing at this point after twenty years.

But those cases aside, I feel that AFC and archtypes and multiclassing among the base classes is and should be preferable, with PrC merely closing the gap on things that don't require (or might be too good with) a full 20-level progression.

(If I wasn't SO NEARLY DONE after nine months with my house-rules, I might be tempted to start going through all the PrC and straight lifting out the features of a lot of them to be applied as archtypes or slotted in as class affinities (what I have chosen to call rogue talents/rage powers/hexes etc etc etc).

...

DAMMIT, I'm going to, now, aren't I?

*sigh*

Actually, maybe it won't hurt, since looking at my short-list of available PrC, it might actually trim the list down significantly, with the ground that 59 base classes (plus archtypes) now covers in 3.Aotrs...)



As a construct of something that you only get as part of some organisation, I simply have never felt that idea carries any particular worth, especially as it requires that you bend your world over backwards to accomodate it.



(Edit: well, actually, looking at my list, just flicking through Complete Divine indicates I can clear prob'lyhalf the list right out as base classes now do the job better.)

[Yora]

Prestige Classes where an interesting concept in the Dungeon Master's Guide, where they were presented as optional classes to customize homebrew campaign settings and offer players additional customization options based on the unique organizations they befriended.

But they almost immediately became the main content of a dozen customization books for players and mandatory content in pretty much every book. I think that was the mai reason for the massive bloat that 3rd edition had, and what was really driving the whole character optimization sub-culture. The opposite of how I think Prestige Classes were originally intended.

I think their role is now given to class specializations in 5th edition. Does basically the same thing, but much more compact and accessible from 1st or 3rd level.

[Spriteless]

In Warhammer Fantasy Battle Roleplaying Game, every class only has so much you can get out of it. Most classes are kind of crappy, and if you roll randomly you are likely to get a bunch of noncombatant peasants. But each class also has exit options. You can go from charlatin entertainer to stage hypnotist to a basic medic, and you will be better at blocking patients' pain than someone who started as a medic. Being a peasant farmer means you don't forget your muscle with whatever you do next. It's kind of like having a bunch of temp jobs irl; if you're lucky you'll find a career path that's good, but uh I made myself sad.

It resembles what Cluedrew was saying about 4e tiers, except old and not every class has the same amount of levels and there is no expectation that you are cool people to start with. 5e classes are meant to keep getting better the more levels you take, so balancing a prestige class against that would be trouble. You could just explicitly say "This is a multiclass option meant for martial classes of 7th+ level" and it would be more balanced than 3e's kludge of "You need this combination things that you can't get until 5th level (unless you use the eldritch knight class also introduced in this book [against designers intent, still weaker than CoDzilla])." I would prefer some way to improve the fighting styles myself.

[Segev]

I think we have two major points of comparison, nowadays, that might help deliniate what is good and bad about prestige classes: Pathfinder (1e) archetypes, and D&D 5e subclasses.

Pathfinder archetypes are an evolution of a 3.5 concept of alternate class features; they're basically suites of such swap-outs that let you redesign a class. A lot of the time, they either downplay one area of focus to emphasize another (Soulbolt archetype trades out soulknife blade for soulbolt ranged weapon early, basically swapping which you start with and which you have to pick up later), or they take a structure that the base class introduces and twist it around because it works well with another (the Vigilante class is there to play Zoro or Batman, but the Magical Child archetype takes its dual identity concept and gives it a transformation sequence, magic, and a talking animal companion for a rather different genre feel). Sometimes they even change a core conceit while keeping the general role the same (Black Blade Magus is bonded to a sentient weapon that grows in power with him, but still is a gish).

They also can be used to hybridize. A Psychic Detective Investigator trades alchemy for psychic spellcasting while keeping the core investigator thing going on. (This typically happens with already-hybrid classes, though.)

The hybridization is something that PrCs do better for solidly-themed base classes that don't already have a melding of two class archetypes into one. The Psychic Detective archetype works only because the Investigator is already a rogue/alchemist hybrid (with his own unique Inspiration mechanic), and thus you can trade out one side of the hybrid to replace it with "Psychic lite." PrCs can take any two classes and merge them, with varying degrees of success. First and foremost, PrCs can simply turn on advancement for both classes in whatever the PrC considers the "core" of each. Mystic Theurge, for instance, which takes a divine and arcane casting class and lets them both keep advancing. This would be difficult to do with an archetype, especially as modularly as Mystic Theurge does it.

5e Subclasses are basically PrCs done as modular archetypes. Sometime in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level, the player chooses a direction to take the base class, still getting base class features throughout, but a number of the class features are dictated by subclass, as well. Subclasses can be anything from a particular focus (Thief vs. Assassin, Berserker vs. Zealot) to a form of hybrid (Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster) to just a bit of flavor with some ribbons (most Patrons). They're baked into the base classes, with specified advancement points, and you can do a lot with them. The trick there is picking which base class to start with if you want a hybrid, and making sure you don't make it too good (or too flavorless or badly-flavored; Hexblade is guilty of both, in my opinion).

The value of PF archetypes over PrCs is early entry and smoother progression. You can start right off the bat as a Magical Child rather than having to be Batgirl for 5 levels before she gets a talking batterang that lets her turn into Magical Girl Kumori-chan. PF also, technically, addressed this with some of the more popular hybrids via base classes. Magus remains, in my opinion, the best gish design (particularly for fighter/wizard, but also just in general) in all of the D&D family.

The value of PrCs over PF archetypes is that they can take a number of entry points and give them a focus that enhances the base class, without having to be tied to a particular base class. This is also their strength in hybridization; they can be general-purpose, hybridizing categories of classes together. A cerebromancer can start off with any manifester and any arcane caster.

One area PrC designers fall down is in over-specifying them. The PrC is too clearly designed for, and in some cases even forced by prerequisites to only allow entry by, particular classes. At that point, you should use a PF archetype, not a PrC.

Pathfinder 1e has both, which is a strength that allows you to use the modularity where useful, or use the locked-in hybridization or shifted focus instead.

5e actually does a very good job with subclasses. They come online no later than level 3, and some classes have them happen at level 1. You can design subclasses to do just about anything as long as they keep the core function of the base class in mind. It's rare that a subclass feels natural to a class and yet comes on line so late that you feel like you have to shift play style from one you didn't want to what you really wanted to play. It does miss out on PrC modularity (you need a subclass specific to a particular class to build a gish; you can't make a gish "PrC" that merges any two base classes), and it is sometimes slower to come online than an archetype. So it's the worst of both worlds, there. But the way it's baked into a class is its own strength: if you want a subclass, you don't have to figure out what abilities of the core class to "trade out;" you have specific mount-points for you to add on the powers of your subclass, and all you're trading away is the opportunity cost of other subclasses.

[Psyren]

(If I wasn't SO NEARLY DONE after nine months with my house-rules, I might be tempted to start going through all the PrC and straight lifting out the features of a lot of them to be applied as archtypes or slotted in as class affinities (what I have chosen to call rogue talents/rage powers/hexes etc etc etc).

...

DAMMIT, I'm going to, now, aren't I?

*sigh*

I've been analyzing the Paizo PrCs over the last several weeks in quarantine for a guide I'm working on. There may be something you can leverage there once I publish it.

[Luccan]

One problem that's dawned on me over the last couple years is that, when not useless or completely lateral in power, prestige classes kind of remove the point of higher levels for most base classes. I mean, you need the progression laid out so you know how a character is supposed to progress based on prestige classes improving things like spellcasting, but I'm not ever going to take 20 levels of Sorcerer again, am I? And at that point, you could probably chop the last ten levels or so off of base class progression, throw in a generic chapter about character improvement as applies to prestige classes, and stop pretending not taking a prestige class is really an option.

Incidentally, d20 Modern and its various spin offs did get rid of 20 level progressions for base classes, so at most you were half your base class and half your advanced class by level 20.

[Aotrs Commander]

One problem that's dawned on me over the last couple years is that, when not useless or completely lateral in power, prestige classes kind of remove the point of higher levels for most base classes. I mean, you need the progression laid out so you know how a character is supposed to progress based on prestige classes improving things like spellcasting, but I'm not ever going to take 20 levels of Sorcerer again, am I? And at that point, you could probably chop the last ten levels or so off of base class progression, throw in a generic chapter about character improvement as applies to prestige classes, and stop pretending not taking a prestige class is really an option.

Pathfinder 1, I think, has done a good job of dealing with that problem, as all the classes now have actual features to proerly give up (especially noncasters). I have never seen the problem so much with my group - there's usually only one or tewo characters (out of 6-8) that bother with a PrC), though that's probably more because they're not that bothered (or playing full casters); but even there, and even as I started to buff up the noncasters years ago, when we had our epic game, both the monk and rogue character classed out at about 15 for swordsage (since that ToB does scale quite well), simply because the last levels of monk and rogue didn't offer anything. (I don't think they'd do that NOW!)

I think the problem there does lie less with PrC existing so much as noncasters always having gotten too short a stick, because 3.0 and 3.5 afterwards grossly over-valued nonspell class features.

(Even now, where I have done stuff like grant fighters all of the PF class features AND a feat every level AND a few little extras, there is an arguement that says "fighter still has less feats than a caster has spells...")

Which of course made PrC more valuable by percieved comparison.

(Of course rhe problem with PrC on the mechanical level is they generally fall into either "underpowered trash sometimes to actively be traps" or "objectively better and/or broken" with few seeming to hit the level of "different, but equal.")

[Morty]

Incidentally, d20 Modern and its various spin offs did get rid of 20 level progressions for base classes, so at most you were half your base class and half your advanced class by level 20.

The class structure is the one thing I'm willing to give d20 credit for. All in all, PrCs are a solution to an incredibly specific problem that doesn't exist in systems that don't use rigid class/level progression.

[Azuresun]

Conversely, if you ask most people whether a high level magic user might be able to do X (for whatever value of X you might choose), there's a strong temptation to imagine if there's any magic user out there who could do it and only say No if you can't think of one. Raising the dead? Sure. Summon bears? Yeah. Rainbow bridge to Valhalla? Okay. Blow up a city? Probably. Turn invisible? Yep. Turn an army into bees? I guess? Which is where prestige classes come into things: you make the Wizard pick a more specific concept like Necromancer, Illusionist, Pyromancer, Shapeshifter, etc. and only let them pick things that are in-theme instead of cherry picking all the best options off of all of the spells you've ever written. D&D already does this a bit by making some spells only appear on the Cleric list and not on the Wizard list, but it could stand to do it more.

The other problem with PrC's for spellcasters is that the Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric are bland while also being very powerful. The only class feature they can "pay" to get into a PrC is their spellcasting and because of the treadmill nature of 3e numbers, giving up levels in that is nearly suicidal. And to amplify the problem, there's a lot of super fun and flavorful themes you can give mages or clerics through PRC's.

So quite early on, PrC's became something that amplified spellcaster dominance with ones like the Radiant Servant or Incantrix, where you could sleepwalk into the requirements, give up nothing (except Turn Undead or familiar progression), keep all your casting and get a smorgasboard of cool extras.

[NichG]

For me the potential promised by PrCs was to have more ways that in-game actions, decisions, and goals could impact mechanical and build opportunities. This game we're embroiled in Thayan politics - here's a bunch of unique options that brings, which I wouldn't have in other campaigns.

D&D 3.5's implementation is about as far from that idea as it is possible to get though.

What I'd do if redesigning is to make PrCs act like substitution levels that you can freely retrain between the base and PrC version as long as you belong to the associated organization and have access to its services. That way there's no need to plan ahead for prerequisites, no issues with PrCs interfering with core class progressions, etc. Plus the flexibility to retrain would give them a unique mechanical role - something like prepared casters get, but for any character to take advantage of.

[Luccan]

For me the potential promised by PrCs was to have more ways that in-game actions, decisions, and goals could impact mechanical and build opportunities. This game we're embroiled in Thayan politics - here's a bunch of unique options that brings, which I wouldn't have in other campaigns.

D&D 3.5's implementation is about as far from that idea as it is possible to get though.

What I'd do if redesigning is to make PrCs act like substitution levels that you can freely retrain between the base and PrC version as long as you belong to the associated organization and have access to its services. That way there's no need to plan ahead for prerequisites, no issues with PrCs interfering with core class progressions, etc. Plus the flexibility to retrain would give them a unique mechanical role - something like prepared casters get, but for any character to take advantage of.

They'd probably be more interesting if they were more setting-tied, true, but then you're putting resources into stuff that's useless to anyone not playing that setting and anyone who is using homebrew or a setting you're not focusing on is going to ignore your book. Which is why most of the time, even though setting PrCs existed, they were really bland in terms of setting content so you could rip out the Faerun or Eberron or whatever bits and stick in your own stuff. This made them more versatile for lore, but an Arcane Scholar of Candlekeep certainly doesn't come across as very Candlekeep-y. Although I think the actual Thayan PrCs are pretty spot on, as far as you can enforce Thay lore mechanically.

[NichG]

They'd probably be more interesting if they were more setting-tied, true, but then you're putting resources into stuff that's useless to anyone not playing that setting and anyone who is using homebrew or a setting you're not focusing on is going to ignore your book. Which is why most of the time, even though setting PrCs existed, they were really bland in terms of setting content so you could rip out the Faerun or Eberron or whatever bits and stick in your own stuff. This made them more versatile for lore, but an Arcane Scholar of Candlekeep certainly doesn't come across as very Candlekeep-y. Although I think the actual Thayan PrCs are pretty spot on, as far as you can enforce Thay lore mechanically.

I understand the explanation of why a publisher might make the choice not to go that route, but I'm thankfully not constrained by the need to make money from what I do with the hobby, so that kind of consideration doesn't really matter to me so much.

And in the context of a single campaign, if e.g. making homebrew for a specific table, you can use the same approach as with a lot of on-the-fly generation of content. Establish only the vague details 'in the city of Arborcrest there's a guild of druids who specialize in constructing architecture out of the controlled growth of plants', and if the players go in that direction then you start spinning out the details of the 'Arboreal Architect' PrC or whatever.

[Luccan]

I understand the explanation of why a publisher might make the choice not to go that route, but I'm thankfully not constrained by the need to make money from what I do with the hobby, so that kind of consideration doesn't really matter to me so much.

And in the context of a single campaign, if e.g. making homebrew for a specific table, you can use the same approach as with a lot of on-the-fly generation of content. Establish only the vague details 'in the city of Arborcrest there's a guild of druids who specialize in constructing architecture out of the controlled growth of plants', and if the players go in that direction then you start spinning out the details of the 'Arboreal Architect' PrC or whatever.

Oh, fair enough. The Thay example made me think you were wondering why WotC did that.

Also, Arboreal Architect is a potentially killer idea for a PrC (and would explain all those elf "grown from trees" cities).

[Morty]

Perks for belonging to a setting-specific organization should just be freebies handed out by the GM for belonging to the organization. There's no reason to bring levels into it - that just makes it unnecessarily clunky.